* 1 * W.P. 4332.2005 30.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4332 OF 2005 Jaitunbee Adamsab Waddo and Ors. ......Petitioners V/S. Smt. Gayabai Revansidh Wangi .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 30 September, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 20th January, 2005 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Solapur allowing an application for amendment at Exhibit­30 in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 1999. Notice of the petition has been served upon respondent no.2, however, he is not present. The name of respondent no.1 is deleted * 2 * W.P. 4332.2005 30.9.2010 from the proceedings pursuant to the order dated 23rd July 2007. 2. Original respondent no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1276 of 1989 for eviction of the petitioners herein who are her tenants on four grounds, which are (i) non­user of the premises; (ii) carrying out alterations and additions to the premises of permanent nature; (iii)non­payment of the arrears of rent and (iv)personal bonafide need of the premises. The suit was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 26th February, 1999 after conducting a full fledged trial, on the court coming to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to establish any of the above grounds of eviction. Respondent no.1 then preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1999 challenging the decree of dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, she sold the demised premises to respondent no.2. He then got himself impleaded to the appeal proceedings as appellant no.2. On 30th January, 2004 respondent no.2 filed an application at Exhibit­30 for amendment of the plaint so as to include in the plaint his bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises instead of the need of respondent no.1­the original plaintiff. That application came to be allowed by the III Additional District Judge, Solapur as * 3 * W.P. 4332.2005 30.9.2010 he was of the opinion that by the proposed amendment, the nature of the suit would not change. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the amendment as sought by respondent no.2 completely changes one of the grounds of eviction pleaded in the suit. 3. The bonafide and reasonable requirement of respondent no.1 as the original plaintiff of the demised premises is completely personal to her and it cannot be replaced by the bonafide and reasonable need of respondent no.2 which would be again personal to him. His requirement therefore cannot be brought on record by way of an amendment and that too at the belated stage. The remedy of respondent no.2 would be to make a separate application for eviction, the cause of action for eviction on the ground of bonafide and personal need of respondent no.1 having come to an end on the sale of the property to respondent no.2. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is required to be quashed and aset aside. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order dated 20th January, 2005 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Solapur passed below Exhibit­30 in * 4 * W.P. 4332.2005 30.9.2010 Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. The application at Exhibit­30 in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 1999 is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]