1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.537 OF 2009 Smt.Vaneja Kelu. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shakuntala C. Joshi ..Respondent. Mr.S.Shamim i/b. Shamim & Co. for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Argument of the Petitioner that entirely new ground is introduced by way of amendment deserves to be stated to be rejected. One cannot overlook the fact that the suit pending before the lower Court is rent Act proceeding. It is also indisputable that the landlord is free to file independent suit on new ground such as bonafide requirement, if the same is available to him to pray for possession of the suit premises. Instead of filing such independent suit, if the landlord has chosen to amend the pending suit, so as to incorporate that ground in the pending suit, no fault can be found with that approach. The fact 2 that the said suit was pending for some time does not deny the landlord of liberty to initiate action against the tenant on the ground, which is available in law. Thus understood, the order passed by the Court below in allowing the proposed amendment is unexceptionable. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend that in the garb of amending the ground, giving further better particulars relating to the ground of default and non-user, new case has been made out. It is not possible to accept this submission for the reasons, which have been rightly recorded by the Court below. 4. Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)