1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8141 OF 2009 Kaustubh Pandurang Apte & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Shri Sharad S. Kulkarni .. Respondent -- Shri Mahendra Agavekar h/f Shri S.M. Kelkar and Shri Mandar Limaye for the Petitioners. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs who have filed a suit for eviction of the suit premises under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit for eviction is on various grounds. One of the grounds is bonafide requirement. The suit was contested by the Respondent/Defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In an appeal, the Respondent made two applications. The first application which is at Exhibit 18 was made for amendment of a Written Statement. By the proposed amendment, a contention was sought to be raised that the 2nd Petitioner has recently acquired a premises on ownership basis and he has been placed in possession of the said premises in which he has started business. It is sought to be contended that in view of availability of the said premises, the bonafide need does not survive. Along with the application, the second application was filed by the Respondent calling 2 upon the Petitioners to produce certain documents in respect of the alleged newly acquired office premises at 415, Narayan Peth, Pune. It was stated in the said application that a notice dated 19th July, 2008 was issued by the Respondent to the Advocate for the Petitioners under Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned orders, both the applications have been allowed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the burden is on the Respondent to prove that one of the Petitioners has acquired office premises during the pendency of the Appeal. He submitted that it is for the Respondent to lead evidence and to prove the said contention. On instruction, he states that the Petitioners are ready and willing to comply with the order dated 18th July, 2009 passed below Application at Exhibit-16 by producing necessary documents before the Appellate Court. He submitted that production of the said documents shall not be construed as any admission on the part of the Petitioners and the issue raised by the Respondent by way of amendment will have to be kept open. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. By the amendment of the Written Statement, the Respondent has sought to incorporate an averment that recently the 2nd Petition has acquired an office premises on ownership basis and has started a business therein. Since the suit filed by the Petitioner was on the ground of bonafide 3 requirement, the alleged acquisition by one of the Petitioners is certainly relevant, and therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in permitting the amendment of the Written Statement on the basis of the alleged subsequent events. It is, however, obvious that the Respondent will have to prove the case made out by him regarding the acquisition of additional accommodation by the 2nd Petitioner. 4. Hence, I pass following order. (a) The Petition is rejected. Time of four weeks is granted to the Petitioners to comply with the order dated 18th July, 2009 passed below Application at Exhibit-16. (b) There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 18th July, 2009 passed below Application at Exhibit-18. However, it will be for the Respondent to prove his case. (A.S.OKA, J) ash