Amendments to pleadings must not change the nature of the suit and should be necessary for determining the real controversy, with oversight not being a valid ground for delay.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. By this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 10 July 2022 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai allowing the application filed by the Plaintiffs at Exhibit-126 for amendment of the plaint.

2. Plaintiffs have instituted R.A.E. & R Suit No. 407 of 1998 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendants essentially on the ground of bonafide requirement of the Plaintiffs. Additionally, it was pleaded that some of the Defendants are in unlawful possession of the suit premises. By application filed at Exhibit-126, Plaintiffs now want to add the ground of unlawful subletting of the tenanted premises as well as non-user thereof. The Small Causes Court has allowed the application for amendment by order dated 10 July 2022 and aggrieved by that order, Petitioners/ Defendant Nos.4 to 6 have filed the present petition.

3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners would submit that this is the ninth amendment which is sought to be introduced in the plaint filed in a suit which is pending since the year 1998. That the only reason pleaded for introducing the amendment at such belated stage was ‘oversight’ and ‘inadvertence’. That the Apex Court has held in Basavaraj Vs. Indira and Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 705 that inadvertence or oversight cannot be a ground for allowing application for amendment. He would also place reliance on judgment of Single judge of this Court in Orient Club Building and Association V/s. Nilofer Abijit Gupta and Ors., 2024 SCC Online Bom 1887. He would further submit that the Small Causes Court has erred in allowing the amendment on the ground that the issue of limitation is being left open. That the issue of limitation is also a relevant factor to be considered while deciding the application for amendment and that if the claim is found to be time barred, it is one of the relevant considerations for rejecting the amendment. In support he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Damodhardas Govindprasad Sangi V/s. Fatehsinh, through LRs and Ors., 2022 SCC Online Bom 6724.

4. Per-contra, Mr. Godbole, the learned senior advocate appearing for Respondents/Plaintiffs would oppose the petition and support the order passed by the Small Causes Court. He would submit that no prejudice is caused to Petitioners on account of application for amendment being allowed as the nature of the suit remains the same. That it is open for the landlord to file a fresh suit on additional grounds for eviction of tenant and the present order aims at preventing multiplicity of litigation. That this is a Suit filed for recovery of possession under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and therefore in the event of the suit being decreed, the possession would become illegal only from the date of passing of the decree. Therefore, delay in decision of the Suit does not affect the interest of the Defendants in so far as the liability for payment of mesne profits is concerned. He would submit that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties and so long as the amendment does not change the nature of the suit, the same has rightly been allowed by the Small Causes Court. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.

5. After having heard the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties, it must be observed at the very outset that the suit is pending for the last 26 long years and at such a belated stage, application for amendment of the plaint is moved and the same is allowed. Plaintiffs are prosecuting the suit for last 26 long years and are delaying their own suit by incorporating numerous amendments in the plaint. Mr. Godbole, has placed before me copy of the plaint amended from time to time, which indicates that it is full of several amendments carried out in different colours. There is no dispute to the position that so far, as many as eight amendments have been effect