1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6719 OF 2009 Smt.Prabhavati wd/o Narayan Laxman Parkar & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Jaywant Chandrakant Pednekar ...Respondent Mr.P.G.Karande for the petitioners Mr.V.R.Tripathi for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Notice for final disposal is already issued. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-tenant on various grounds including the ground of bonafide requirement. During the course of cross examination of the respondent-tenant on 9th February 2009, it was revealed that the father of the respondent died in the premises at Flat no. 201, Adhar Vasant Leela Complex, G.B.Road, Thane. An application for amendment of the plaint was made on 2nd June 2009 by the petitioners for amending the plaint by contending that the said flat no. 201 was available to the respondent on ownership basis and there will not be any hardship if the decree for eviction is passed. The said application is rejected by 2 the trial court. 2 After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the amendment ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in paragraph (7) of the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has observed that the petitioner has already come out with a case that the respondent has acquired a flat which is referred to in paragraph (7). He submitted that the petitioner could have always adduced the evidence and it was not necessary for him to amend the plaint. 3 An application for amendment is based on the fact disclosed to the petitioners on 9th February 2009. Therefore, proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 will not come in the way of the petitioners. The allegation of the petitioners that the respondent has another residential accommodation available is certainly relevant for deciding the issue of comparative hardship. In the circumstances, amendment ought to have been permitted. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and order dated 15th July 2009 is quashed and set aside. 3 ii)Application at Exh.36 made by the petitioner is allowed. iii)It is obvious that after receiving a copy of the amended plaint, it will be open for the respondent to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. iv)Writ petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE