The court emphasized the importance of due diligence in seeking amendments to the plaint and highlighted the conditions for considering subsequent events in a legal proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K Shinde, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

2. Petitioners, are defendants in Eviction Suit No.272/5824 of 2004, instituted by the respondent no.1. Pending suit, the learned Trial Court granted leave to amend the plaint, vide order dated 2nd December, 2019. Felt aggrieved, petitioners had preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal. The Appellate Bench dismissed, the appeal on the ground that appeal was not maintainable-in- law. Thus, aggrieved defendants have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Back-ground facts as approached by the petitioners are as under:

Sanjay M. D'Souza (respondent/plaintiff) through his constituted attorney, Ms. Maria M. D'Souza (mother) let out suit premises to the petitioners/defendants under writing dated 28th May, 1994. In 2004, respondent instituted the eviction suit for breach of clause (v) of the writing dated 28th May, 1994 for sub-letting the possession of the suit premises to a third party. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, plaintiff averred that in 2002, defendants had unlawfully and without plaintiff’s consent, inducted a third party in the suit premises, taking advantage of absence of plaintiff from India. Thus, alleged, defendants have committed breach of the terms and conditions of tenancy and hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover possession under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Yet another ground on which eviction is sought is that defendants, without plaintiff's consent, in writing, erected on the suit premises a permanent structure. Besides, also alleged that premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit.

Written Statement:

4. Defendants resisted the suit. In paragraph 7 of the Written Statement, it is pleaded that defendants came in contact with constituted attorney of the plaintiff, through previous tenants, and during the course of the meeting, constituted attorney was clearly told that defendants were not going to occupy suit premises themselves as, at that time, they had their own suitable residential accommodation, where they have been living and that they were interested in taking the suit premises by way of investment only and they will be letting out suit premises to different licensees on leave and licence basis. It is defendants' case that constituted attorney of the plaintiff had agreed to the said term but told that, in order that Bombay Municipal Corporation do not increase rate-able value of the property on account of letting, defendants would be required to record usual terms of the tenancy. It is further pleaded that constituted attorney told defendants that, as and when premises would be given on leave and licence basis, she will charge 1/3rd of the licence fees as extra amount for her consent and she will witness all the leave and licence agreements by way of consent for giving it to different parties. Defendants would contend that the said agreements have also been acted upon. It is, therefore, contended that plaintiff is estopped from contending otherwise recording the rights of the defendants to give suit premises on leave and licence basis. Defendants would also contend that when suit premises were given on leave and licence basis, agreements were prepared by the advocate for the plaintiff and in all the agreements, she had signed as witness and charged extra amount for the same. Admittedly, defendants did not produce leave and licence agreements, at the appropriate stage but craved leave to refer and rely, on leave and licence agreements. Defendants, therefore, denied that they had unlawfully sub-let the premises as alleged and further denied plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession of the suit premises on this ground. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Written