1 (WP 1944 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1944 OF 2011 Trevor M. D'Silva ...Petitioner Vs. Michael R. Fernandes & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.V.R. Tripathi for Petitioner Mr.Rohaan Cama i/b. Mr.R.A. Fernandes for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 22nd March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is the original Defendant-Tenant. A suit was filed by the Respondents herein on the ground of arrears of rent, non-user of the premises and permanent illegal construction. Three years after the suit was filed, an application was filed by the Plaintiff, adding one more ground i.e. ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. This application was opposed by the Petitioner-Defendant on the ground that in view of the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17, no explanation has been given by the Plaintiffs as to why the said ground 2 (WP 1944 of 2011) was taken up immediately after the plaint was filed. Reliance was also placed on the two judgments; one of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Sami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. [2007 AIR SCW 513], and anther judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dharamsingh s/o Sardarsingh Chabada vs. Pritamsingh s/o Sardarsingh Chabada and Ors. The Trial Court, however, held that since under the provisions of Rent Act, the landlord is permitted to file different suits against the tenants on each of the grounds which are available to him under the Rent Act, provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 will have to be taken into consideration. The Trial Court, therefore, held that in order to avoid the unnecessary multiplicity the proceedings, the Plaintiffs should be permitted to incorporate the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement in the pending suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Defendant preferred a revision application before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. The revision application was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has filed this present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 (WP 1944 of 2011) 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the two judgments on which reliance was placed by him. The Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr (supra) has held that after the issues are settled and the trial has commenced, the parties should not be permitted to amend their pleading in order to proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs were very well aware of the said ground of bonafide requirement when the suit was filed and no explanation whatsoever was made by them in the application for amendment as to why the said ground has not been taken at an earlier stage. 4. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The landlord is entitled to file different suits against the tenants on the different grounds of eviction which are available to him and as such, the Plaintiff could not file a separate suit against the Defendant on the ground of bonafide requirement. In my view, both the Courts below have justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit which is filed under the Rent Act, the Court can take into consideration that the landlord can only file a suit on the ground of bonafide requirement since it 4 (WP 1944 of 2011) constitutes a continuous cause of action. Secondly, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, it is advisable that in such cases the landlord should be permitted to amend his plaint . The ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in my view, will not apply to the facts of the present case. In case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr (supra) , the Plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking a declaration that in view of the resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.5.2002, Defendant No.1 having ceased to be the Acharya, was not entitled by himself or through Defendant No.2 from enjoying any of the privileges or rights in respect of the said pose including the temples falling under the Vadtal Gaadi. In the said suit, the Plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint and produced further documents, which application for amendment was allowed. An appeal preferred to the High Court challenging the said order, which was admitted and thereafter, on 31.1.2003, the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the resolution dated 11.5.2002. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court has passed the said order and has made the 5 (WP 1944 of 2011) observations on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in my view, the ratio of the said judgment will certainly not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dharamsingh s/o Sardarsingh Chabada (supra.) also the facts were different. In the said case also an application was filed by the Defendant seeking amendment to the written statement and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court. In the said case facts are different and in both the cases civil suits were filed seeking declaration. In the present case, the Respondents have filed the suit for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act. The ratio, therefore, will not apply to the facts of the present case. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by both the Courts below. Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)