1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4454 of 2011 Phoolchand M. Mehta ..VS.. Murtuzabhai Moizbhai - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. O.W. Gupta, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 12 th September, 2011. Heard Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 26.4.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner also challenges an order dated 4.3.2011 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the trial court on 26.4.2010. The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction and possession on the ground he bonafide required the suit property for his occupation. The suit was filed under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent pleaded in the suit that the respondent wanted to carry on business of hardware independently and therefore he required the suit premises for the business. However, since it was stated in para 4 of the 2 plaint that as no shop was available to the father of the respondent, he was carrying on the business of hardware in the passage of 'Sansar Bazar' along with the respondent who was managing the said business, the petitioner wanted to amend the written statement to point out that the father of the respondent died during the pendency of the proceedings and hence the need of the respondent did not subsist. The trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement as the proposed amendment was not necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. It was not the case of the respondent that the respondent required the suit premises for the need of his father. Since, it was the case of the respondent that he required the same for carrying on the hardware business, the trial court rightly held that the proposed amendment did not have a bearing on the controversy involved in the case. The court also observed that the petitioner was trying to protract the proceedings and the matter was being adjourned at the behest of the respondent from time to time. The impugned order passed by the trial court on 26.4.2010 is just and proper and calls for no interference. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan