Allowed

Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry v. Helvetia Tours and Travel Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2006WP/2149/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHigh Court judge allowed an amendment to a written statement in a suit under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The amendment enables the defendant to raise defenses concerning zoning regulations and land use permissions. The court also directed expedited proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The trial court was directed to allow the amendment to the written statement to incorporate specific paragraphs and expedite the entire trial process.

Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry Vs Helvetia Tours and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2149 OF 2006

¶5

 Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry .. ..Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 Helvetia Tours & Travel Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr.Mohan Jayakar i/b Khaitan & Jayakar for petitioner

¶9

 Ms Ranjana Parekh for respondents

¶10

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

¶11

 DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2006

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶14

 Perused the record.

¶15

 2. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

¶16

 3. The Petitioner-defendant has impugned the order
 passed by the trial judge dated 8.2.2006 rejecting his
 Notice and application for amendment of the written

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 statement basically on the ground that by the proposed
 amendment the defendant wants to raise certain points of
 law which according to the learned trial judge cannot be
 pleaded in pleading and therefore, in his opinion these
 points of law would be considered while deciding the
 suit, if needed and as such the application for amendment
 of the written statement came to be rejected on the
 ground that it was not required and hence the present
 petition.

¶19

 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
 brought to my notice the contents of the Schedule of the
 proposed amendment. I have categorically perused the
 same. After hearing the learned counsel for the
 respondents, I am of the view that only paras 3, 4, 5, 6
 and 8 would be necessary to be brought on record by way
 of amendment to the written statement. It is to be noted
 that basically the defendant is contesting the suit filed
 by the respondents under Section 16(g) of the Maharashtra
 Rent Control Act on the ground that the premises is
 required by the landlord reasonably and bonafide for
 their use and occupation for expansion of their present

¶20

 travel agency business. In order to rebut the said
 demand the defendant has come with the case that the

¶21

 : 3 :

¶22

 plaintiffs would not be permitted even under the DC
 Regulations 1991, which are currently in force, to use a
 place on the mezzanine floor for travel agency. It is
 also sought to be noted that under the CRZ Notification
 the plaintiffs cannot be given permission to use the
 place as a travel agency since on 19.2.1991, no travel
 agency was permitted at all in an R-2 area. These and
 similar contentions, which are in my view, not only
 essential but relevant for the purpose of adjudication of
 the suit effectively.

¶23

 . Under the circumstances, I am inclined to hold
 that paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Schedule are required
 to be incorporated in the written statement by way of
 amendment in order to enable the defendant to defend his
 cause effectively and to that extent the rule is made
 absolute and petition is allowed.

¶24

 5. The trial court shall allow the

¶25

 petitioner-defendant to amend the written statement in
 order to incorporate paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the
 Schedule in the written statement and thereafter raise
 additional issues, if any. Both the parties would be at
 liberty to lead evidence on the basis of additional

¶26

 : 4 :

¶27

 issues which could be raised on the basis of amended

¶28

 written statement.

¶29

 6. The learned counsel for the respondents urged
 that the suit is old and needs to be expedited. In view
 of the fact position I agree with the submission and it
 is directed that the entire process of effecting the
 amendment, raising the additional issues and continuing
 with recording of evidence of both the parties shall be
 expedited so as to dispose of the suit within a period of
 one year from the date of this order. It is also
 directed that the plaintiffs would be entitled to lead
 additional evidence, if any, on the basis of additional

¶30

 issues raised after the amended written statement.

¶31

 7. With these directions the petition stands

¶32

 disposed of with no order as to costs.

Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry v. Helvetia Tours and Travel Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry v. Helvetia Tours and Travel Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Subhash Dshala Kinjle Vs Smt. Indra Rani Uggarsen

Shrinath v. Chaturvedi and Anr. Vs Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani and Anr.

M/S. Chittaranjan Housing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Prithviraj Badriprasad Morya

Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar and Ors. Vs Rajaram Ramji Kadam and Ors.

Amar Kaur Suri and Anr. Vs Shapurbaug Consumers Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Arun Janaji Jadhav Vs Bachan Vasudeo Basushi Chaurasiya and Ors.