WP. 9307-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 9307 OF 2010 Mr. Ratikant Shankarlal Toshniwal & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Mr. Murlidhar Tukaram Bhise & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Petitioners. Mr. J. Shekhar, for the Respondents. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JULY 6, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioner are original tenants and respondent are original plaintiffs/landlord. A suit was filed for eviction by the landlord against the tenants on various grounds. One of the grounds was the bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs. After the plaint was filed, an application for amendment was made to add two paragraphs to the plaint and add the paragraph containing additional reasons why the plaintiff require the premises under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) of the WP. 9307-10 - 2 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The tenant, apart from amending his written-statement, also filed an application for framing the additional issues. The said application was rejected and it was held by the trial court that it is not necessary to frame the additional issues since these issues are already covered by issue Nos. 4A and 4B. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, submitted that impugned order was passed exparte without giving hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that, therefore, a Review Petition filed therein was also dismissed. Secondly, it was submitted that the landlord had given his ‘no objection’ for framing of additional issues. However, the trial court behind their back rejected the application for framing of additional issues. Thirdly, it is submitted that a new case was sought to be made out by the plaintiffs and it was necessary to frame additional issues. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, denied the contentions of the petitioners that the exparte order was passed. He also denied that the landlord has given his ‘no objection’ for framing of additional issues. 3. In my view, taking into consideration the amended paragraphs in the plaint and the issue Nos. 4a. and 4b. which have been framed by the court, the trial court was justified in coming to the WP. 9307-10 - 3 - conclusion that the said issues which were sought to be framed by the tenants were covered by Issue Nos. 4a. and 4b. Issue Nos. 4a. and 4b. read as under- “4a. Whether the suit premises are reasonably and bonafidely required by the Plaintiffs for their personal use and occupation? 4b. If yes, to whom greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it?” The Additional issues which were sought to be framed are as under- “1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the suit property on the ground alleged by him in Para 14A of the Plaint? 2. Whether the Plaintiffs have proved that the defendants have acquired an alternate accommodation by them as alleged in Para No. 14B of the Plaint? 3. Whether the Plaintiffs have proved that the alternate accommodation are suitable and proper to the defendants, as alleged?” 4. The trial court, therefore, in my view, is justified in holding that it is covered by Issue Nos. 4a. and 4b. No case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Hearing of the suit is expedited. [ V. M. KANADE J.]