1 wp 8343.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8343 OF 2011 Khimji Bhanji and Co. through Partner and others .. Petitioners Versus Hemantkumar Prabhudas Vora .. Respondent Shri R. P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are tenants. The present respondent filed eviction proceedings. The same came to be decreed. The tenant preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal the petitioner filed an application for amendment on the ground that the landlord has constructed a two storied residential building in the premises of Hemant Ice Factory bearing CTS No. 4705 and Municipal No. R-3-989, 989/1 to 989/3. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2 wp 8343.11 2. Shri Adgaonkar, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that one of the ground for eviction is reasonable bonafide requirement of the owner/landlord. Vide said amendment the petitioners want to bring on record subsequent event of residential house constructed by the landlord at Hemant Ice Factory. The same was relevant and would be material for just decision of the dispute between the parties. According to the learned counsel fair opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioners to plead and prove their case. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Chanchalaben Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in 2002 (4) Mh. L. J. 382. 3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and states that earlier also similar application was filed in respect of same property which was rejected. Only nomenclature is changed. Even otherwise the said property does not stand in the name of the plaintiff. The Court has properly considered the same. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order. The Court has specifically observed that not a single document has been placed on record by the tenant to show that 3 wp 8343.11 the landlord has right and interest in the property known as Hemant Ice Factory over which two storied residential building is constructed. The Court has observed that the landlord does not appear to be owner of said two storied residential building. 5. In such circumstances no error has been committed by the Court in rejecting the application. 6. Shri Adgonkar, the learned counsel submits that even petitioners have moved to Municipal Council seeking information under the Right to Information Act and the same is not yet received. The second appeal against that is pending. 7. If the petitioners get any official information regarding ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the said property at Hemant Ice Factory, then in that case, the petitioners are at liberty to move the application in that regard, which the Court would consider on its own merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11