1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4106 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4106 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4106 OF 2008 Dr.Suhas Bhalchandra Nene ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Mohini Krushnakumar Pitale Respondent Mr. S.A.Bhagwat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Salil Ray, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 24th November, 2008. DATE: 24th November, 2008. DATE: 24th November, 2008. P.C P.C P.C 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the original defendant. The respondent/plaintiff is the landlady. The respondent filed Civil Suit No.452 of 1998 in the Small Causes Court, Pune, for eviction and 2 possession mainly on two grounds i.e. (1) bonafide and reasonable requirement and (2) unauthorised additions and alterations made by the defendant in the suit premises which consists of a block of two rooms. The suit was defended by the defendant as per the written statement filed in November, 2006. The parties also led evidence on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Later on, on 26.11.2007, the defendant made an application seeking amendment in the written statement on the basis of a notice issued to the Municipal Corporation on 24.8.2004 wherein it was contended that the plaintiff had not made an application for regularisation of the construction within the period granted under the Maharashtra Gunthewari Act, 2001 and the plaintiff was directed to file such an application within one month, failing which the construction would be demolished. The proposed amendment was rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, the defendant has filed this petition seeking direction to allow the amendment. 3. After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the said notice has nothing to do with the litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant. That notice is issued to the landlady not only about the suit premises, but also about the complete structure on Survey No.81/1. The construction 3 on that land was made long back before the said Act came into force and the persons who had made such construction were given certain time to get the construction regularised and by the said notice last opportunity was given to the plaintiff to get it regularised. That notice has no bearing on the suit for eviction. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this petition. The petition stands dismissed. 4. The observations made in this order will not come in the way of the defendant in respect of the issue as to whether the defendant had made any unauthorised additions and alterations in the suit premises. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)