1 WP No.771/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.771 of 2010 Narayan Chandappa Guled ... Petitioner versus Rajendra Baburao Babladi ... Respondent ... Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 29th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 12 August 2009 rejecting the petitioner’s application made in appeal for amendment of the written statement. Respondent is an owner of the suit building which consists of four shops on the ground floor and upper floors. Petitioner is a tenant occupying one of the four shops. The other three shops are in possession of other tenants. 3. Respondent is a Doctor by profession and previously had his clinic in a premises taken on rent by him elsewhere. He filed a suit for possession against the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. He inter alia alleged that his landlord had filed a 2 WP No.771/10 suit against him for possession and he would therefore, be required to vacate those premises and has no other premises for profession. He also contended that his son as well as his daughter in law were also doctors and he wanted to start a nursing home in the entire ground floor and half portion of the first floor in his building and therefore, he required the suit premises. 4. Petitioner had also filed similar suits against the remaining three tenants. Suit against the petitioner was decreed and in the appeal pending against the decree of eviction, the petitioner made an application for amendment. By the amendment, he sought to plead that respondent had since obtained a decree for possession against another tenant of the ground floor of the said building wherein he had started his clinic. Petitioner sought amendment of the pleadings on the ground that respondent’s alleged need had been satisfied by acquisition of premises in execution of the decree against another tenant. 5. Acquisition of another premises during the pendency of a suit being a subsequent event, tenant would ordinarily be entitled to bring on record the fact of acquisition of additional premises. That may be allowed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question however, is whether the amendment of the pleadings was necessary for the purpose of bringing on record this fact. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, amendment is not at all necessary for bringing this fact on record for the reasons indicated below. 6. In the plaint, respondent has stated in paragraph no.7 as follows:­ 3 WP No.771/10 “That, the plaintiff wants to start a Nursing Home in the entire ground floor and a half portion of the first floor alongwith his medically qualified son and daughter. Moreover, the premises which the plaintiff has taken on leave and licence basis is to be vacated on or before 2.8.2004. In such a situation, the plaintiff needs his own premises for his and his children bonafide requirement. The case of the respondent was that he requires the entire ground floor and not merely the premises in occupation of the petitioner. This alleged requirement which, of course, was denied by the petitioner the parties went to trial. Parties adduced evidence as to whether the respondent required the entire ground floor. As such, it was not necessary for the petitioner to plead again that respondent has acquired part of the premises of the ground floor because it is not the case of the respondent that he required only part of the ground floor. As such, amendment of the pleading is not necessary. Having held that the amendment is not necessary as the pleadings were sufficient to consider whether the requirement of the respondent was for the whole of the ground floor, it must be mentioned that additional evidence in respect of the subsequent event cannot be shut out. It would be open to the petitioner to apply for production of additional evidence regarding the acquisition of the premises by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. With this observation, writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)