1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6677 OF 2010 Mohammed Salim Abdul Kayam Kodia. .. Petitioner Vs Mrs. Clotilda Pereira & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri G.S. Godbole i/by Shri Nitin Mulye for the Petitioner. Shri Vishal Kanade i/by Divya Shah Associates for Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent is the Plaintiff and the Petitioner is the 5th Defendant. The suit is filed by the 1st Respondent in the Court of Small Causes for a declaration that the 1st Respondent is the tenant in respect of the suit flat. According to the case of the 1st Respondent, Wallace Floor Mills Company Limited was the landlord of the 1st Respondent and the said company transferred the ownership rights in respect of the suit flat to the 2nd Respondent herein ( Original 1st Defendant ). Apart from the declaration of tenancy, perpetual injunction has been prayed for restraining the 1st Respondent from recognizing the 2nd to 4th Defendants as the tenants in respect of any of the rooms forming part of the suit flat. An application for amendment of the 2 plaint was made by the 1st Respondent before the trial Court. The amendment was allowed by the Trial Court. A revision application was preferred by the Petitioner before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes for challenging the order of the Trial Court. By the impugned order, the Revision Application has been rejected. 2. The amendment prayed for by the 1st Respondent is on the ground that the larger property has been sold by the legal representatives of the original 1st Defendant to the 5th and 6th Defendants. It is stated that the 5th and the 6th Defendants, during the pendency of the suit demolished the suit flat. Therefore, a prayer is made for adding necessary averments and prayer for seeking a decree for possession against the 5th and 6th Defendants. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the 6th Defendant was already dead and, therefore, no amendment could have been permitted. He submitted that the original suit was for declaration of tenancy and now the 1st Respondent is seeking to add prayer of decree for possession on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the 5th and 6th Defendants dispossessed the 1st Respondent and demolished the suit flat. He submitted that the proposed amendment completely changes the nature of the suit and therefore, the same ought not to have been allowed. 3 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent on instructions states that as the 6th Defendant is dead, the 1st Respondent will not will not press for any relief against the said deceased defendant. 5. I have considered the submissions. In a suit for declaration of tenancy filed by the 1st Respondent, by way of amendment it was sought to be contended that the 5th and 6th Defendants took over the property from the legal representatives of the original 1st Defendant and has allegedly demolished the suit flat. Therefore, by the amendment, the 1st Respondent has prayed for a substantive relief for decree of possession. According to the case of the 1st Respondent, the 5th and 6th Defendants claimed that they are the alleged landlords of the 1st Respondent. According to the case of the 1st Respondent, demolition has taken placed during pendency of the suit. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment has been permitted. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent has made a statement that the 1st Respondent will not claim any relief against the deceased 6th Defendant. 6. Moreover, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court is of interlocutory nature which is capable of being challenged in an appeal which will be preferred by the Petitioner against the final decree passed in the suit. It must be noted here that the revision application filed by the Petitioner before the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes was not maintainable in law and therefore, notwithstanding the rejection of the 4 revision application, it will be open for the Petitioner to challenge the order impugned while preferring an appeal against the decree passed in the suit and the order passed on the revision application will not come in the way of the Petitioner. 7. What is observed above, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is rejected. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for continuation of the relief granted earlier. The prayer is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)