ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7920 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7920 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7920 OF 2008 Spencer International Hotels Ltd. ....Petitioner. Vs. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents. S/Shri J.C.Mitra with B.A.D’Lima i/by M/s.D’Lima & Associates for the Petitioner. Shri Durgaprasad S. Sabnis for Respondent No. 1. Shri S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 16TH DECEMBER, 2008. : 16TH DECEMBER, 2008. : 16TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- The Petitioners-Tenants in eviction suit filed by Respondent-Plaintiff, after the evidence was over, moved an amendment application, which was rejected by the Trial Court and the said rejection order has confirmed by the Revisional Court by holding that there is no justification for delay and therefore, rejected the same by both the Courts. 2. The Petitioners-Defendants have paid up share capital of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only). The Plaintiffs are also public limited company and are owners of the said premises in question. The ( 2 ) premises was let out for the purpose of residence at a monthly rent of Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred fifty only) that fact is not disputed. The basic documents of these according to the Petitioner, is said unregistered letter dated 20th June, 1980. The Petitioners are in possession based upon the same since then. However, in pursuance to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the present suit is filed by the Plaintiff for possession claiming that the Petitioners are not protected under the said Act. The trial already began. During the evidence, the Petitioner-Respondents moved this application to amend the Written Statement by raising a plea under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act-1882. If this plea is necessary to be raised in defence and therefore in given fact and circumstances as the document of 1980 is not in dispute, I see there is no reason not to allow this amendment. It appears that the document is within the knowledge of both the parties as based upon that the Petitioner entered into the premises. This document and averments surrendering the same including the plea as raised, in my view just cannot be thrown away merely on the ground of delay. 3. The letter dated 20/06/1980 and the plea as raised is necessary for proper adjudication/obligation of the ( 3 ) parties, at least, to raise necessary defence in support of the Defendant’s case. 3. Taking all this into account, I am inclined to grant this amendment as prayed. It is in the interest of both the parties that this document and plea as raised should be decided at the earliest. 4. In the result, the amendment application (Interlocutory Notice No.466 of 2005) is granted. The Petitioners to take steps on or before 13/01/2009, accordingly. However, this is subject to keeping all points/defence open for Plaintiff and Petitioners-Defendants to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on or before 13/01/2009 as a condition precedent. . No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)