1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7778 OF 2008 Shaikh Harun Shaikh Gafoor .. Petitioner versus Abdul Hafiz A. Aziz & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/by Mr.Sagar Kasar for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Sandhyanshiv for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is a defendant in a suit filed by the respondents under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. During the pendency of an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decree passed in favour of the respondents, an application for amendment of the written statement was made. The said amendment was for contending that one Mohammad Amin Haji Fakir Mohammad is the owner of the suit premises as reflected from the revenue records as well as finding recorded by this Court in Second Appeal No.244 of 2004. A contention was sought to be raised by the amendment that as the said third party is the owner of the suit premises, the respondents have no right to maintain a suit for eviction. The said application for amendment has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2 reasoning given by the learned District Judge is perverse and the learned Judge has not considered the nature of the amendment. He submitted that the petitioner wants to contend that the respondents have ceased to be landlords and that they are not the landlords. He, therefore, submitted that the amendment deserves to be allowed. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The suit filed by the respondents is on the ground that they are the landlords of the petitioner. Perusal of the text of the proposed amendment shows that all that the petitioner wants to say is that a third party is the owner of the suit premises. The petitioner has not come out with a case that the said third party is the landlord. The suit filed by the respondents proceeds on the footing that they are landlords. Considering the scope and nature of the suit for eviction under the said Act of 1947, the title of the respondents is not relevant and what is to be seen is that whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant. What was sought to be introduced by the amendment was a contention that the respondents are not the owners and somebody else is the owner. 4. Though the reasons recorded by the District Court may not be satisfactory, on plain reading of the text of the amendment the same could not have been permitted in as much as considering the nature of the suit filed by the respondents, issue of title cannot be conclusively decided in such a suit. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)