1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3123/1996 Indirabai Ramkrishna Marwadkar & ors. ...vs. The Addl. Collector, Wardha & author Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Akshay Naik, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. U. J. Deshpande h/f Mr. A. S. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : March 23, 2010 1. This petition is preferred by the landlord challenging order dated 13.05.1996 passed by learned Additional Collector, Wardha in Rent Control Appeal No. 4/71(2)/1994-95, of Wardha. By this order, the learned Additional Collector, Wardha has remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller, Wardha to decided the issue of permission under Clause 13(3) (vii) of the Rent Control Order. The Lower Court is further directed to conduct enquiry afresh, which would include appreciation of evidence including expert witnesses and spot inspection by lower Court and to pass an order as it deems fit. 2 2. The Rent Controller, Wardha by his order dated 24.10.1994 passed in R.C.No.36/71-2/84-85, granted permission. This order was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the tenant in appeal before the Additional Collector, Wardha. The appellate Court has recorded a finding that the Rent Controller has considered this spot inspection report. However, the additional evidence has not been considered. It is further held that the landlord, who is present petitioner, ought to have led evidence and examined the independent witnesses including technical experts in building and construction line. It is further held that the lower Court has not enquired about the proposed structure or has not ascertained whether the landlord had prepared plan of future construction in case the shopping complex was to be prepared. On this count, the matter has been remanded to the Rent Controller for decision afresh after providing the parties an opportunity. 3. The appellate Court has although directed the lower Court to conduct the enquiry afresh, which would include appreciation of evidence including expert witness and spot inspection, it has not issued a specific direction to the 3 trial Court to permit the parties to lead the additional evidence, if any. 4. In view of this, the interest of justice would be met if all the parties in the instant proceeding are permitted to amend their pleadings accordingly and lead further evidence as they desire to lead, in support of their case. Except this modification, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the appellate authority. 5. In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Rent Controller shall permit the parties to amend the pleadings afresh suitably and further to lead such additional evidence in support of their case, either documentary or oral, as they desire to lead. The petition stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. J UDGE kahale