1 (WP1980/2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1980 OF 2011 Mrs. Mangal Madhukar Joglekar and others ..... Petitioners. v/s Mr. Shripad Bhaskar Bhagwat and others ..... Respondents. Mr. Avinash B. Avhad for the Petitioners. Mr. P. Killedar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 25th April, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Petitioners - original Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daund, District Pune dated 19/1/2011. By the said order, the application filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs for recasting the issues which were framed earlier by the Court was rejected. In the application for recasting the issues, it was submitted that the Petitioners had filed a suit against the Defendants – tenants for eviction on two grounds; one on the ground of bonafide requirement and the other on the ground that the Defendants had acquired the suitable alternative 2 (WP1980/2011) accommodation. 2. It is submitted that though the second ground was specifically taken and an averment to that effect was made in the Plaint and this averment was denied in the Written Statement, the Trial Court did not frame this issue. It is also contended that the issue of comparable hardship to the Plaintiffs was not framed. 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the averments regarding acquisition of alternate accommodation were made in the plaint by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and these averments are denied by the Respondents/Defendants. The Trial Court has, without assigning any reasons, merely rejected the said application only on the ground that the suit is fixed for adducing evidence. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners on the point of framing of issue of alternate accommodation, therefore, will have to be accepted. So far as the second issue is concerned, that issue is already framed by the Trial Court and, therefore, it is not necessary to recast the issue regarding comparable hardship which may be caused to the landlord. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. Application filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is partly allowed and the Trial Court is directed to frame the following issue:- 3 (WP1980/2011) “Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the property bearing Daund S.No. 105/A1/22/2/1 is the suitable alternative premises for occupation of the Defendants, as alleged in Para 12 of the Plaint (Exh.1)?” 5. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Trial is expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.)