1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2597 OF 2008 (Anil Gattulal Jain & Anr. vs. Amrut Damodar Rokde & Anr. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2008. Heard finally by consent of parties Shri Wakil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Markandewar, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners – tenants wanted to amend their written statement to contend that the respondents – landlords and other family members are having shop blocks 123, 124, 166 and 204 in Sut Market, Gandhibag, Nagpur. According to them, the ownership / occupation of these shop blocks was suppressed and they were sought to be evicted by pleading bonafide need. The Court below has rejected that application by observing that it was only an attempt to protract the litigation and such an amendment was not sought for and effected before the trial Court. Shri Wakil, learned counsel for the petitioners – tenants has contended that as possession was sought on bonafide grounds, law 2 expected respondents – landlords to come clean in the matter and as the landlords suppressed relevant facts, the same can be pointed out at any time by the tenants. He further states that the Court below has erred in not permitting such amendment under mistaken impression that it may result in protracting the litigation. Shri Markandewar, learned counsel for the respondents – landlords contends that such amendment could have been sought for before the trial Court. He further states that four shops mentioned in application for amendment did not belong to present respondents and they have no control over two shops out of four shop blocks. In view of these submissions, I do not find any merit in the arguments at this stage because merits of amendment are not relevant. Whether the facts pleaded are true or not, can be considered by lower appellate Court at appropriate stage. I find that when eviction was sought on bonafide need by present respondents, the respondents ought to have placed before the trial Court itself, all other shops or accommodation available to them and as that has not been done, I am inclined to permit present petitioners to carry out amendment as sought for. At this stage, Shri Markandewar, learned 3 counsel has pointed out that in proposed amendment, apart from pointing out the availability of these four shop blocks, there are certain other grounds. He has invited attention to those grounds. I find the grounds to be argumentative and in any case amendment on those lines cannot be allowed by the appellate Court. Hence, writ petition is partly allowed. Amendment to the extent as sought for by incorporating para 18 in written statement is only granted. The impugned order dated 6.3.2008 passed by Ad hoc District Judge -5, Nagpur, below Exh. 14 is modified to that extent. The petitioners – tenants are permitted to amend their written statement by adding para 18 as sought for vide Exh. 14. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that the respondents – landlords are at liberty to carry out appropriate consequential amendment. JUDGE *GS.