1 (Wp 7246 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7246 OF 2010 Mrs.Khursheed Rustuam Jeejeebhoy ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Rupa R. Daswani ...Respondent ----- Mr.N.P. Deshpande for Petitioner Mr. A.P. Kulkarni with Mr. Indrajeet Singh with Mr. Rahul Garg for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14th March, 2011 P.C. 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Pune in an application filed by the Petitioner in Appeal No. 184 of 2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the Original Tenant. A suit was filed by the Respondent- landlady for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the landlady. Against this order, an appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner and in this appeal an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement. It was contended in the said application that the tenant wanted to incorporate in his written statement an additional 2 (Wp 7246 of 2010) facts regarding transfer of the residential premises by the landlady by way of a gift deed and certain other facts. It was submitted that the Trial Court had considered the said facts in its judgment and order. However, since these facts were not pleaded in the written statement, the Petitioner-Tenant has filed an application in the Appeal Court in order to ensure that he is not precluded from making the submissions on the said facts. 3. In my view, the said submissions cannot be accepted. In the first place the Petitioner ought to have make an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC in the Trial Court itself since these events had already taken place during the pendency of the suit and, secondly, since these facts were argued by the Tenant and are considered by the Trial Court in its judgment and order. This being the position, the apprehension of the Petitioner is misconceived. Since the Trial Court has considered this aspect, the Appellate Court is bound to consider this fact while deciding the appeal. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. Writ Petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)