Amendments to pleadings are permitted to ensure clarity on bonafide requirements, provided they do not alter the fundamental nature of the case or prejudice the other party.

JUDGMENT :-

1. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 7th July, 2022 passed in Revision Application No.53 of 2022 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of the Small Causes at Mumbai.

2. The petitioners are tenants of the Respondent No.1-Bank, (Original Plaintiff) in the RAE Suit No.1794/5544 of 1986 (the “said suit”), in respect of the premises in the building at 89, Mohammed Ali Road, Mumbai 400 003 (the “said property”).

3. The Respondent No.1-Bank had filed the said suit against Shri. Jagdish Savailal Sanghavi and ors., the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 and the petitioners and their respective Predecessors-in-title and other Respondents seeking Decree of Eviction in respect of the suit premises viz, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the said property, inter-alia, on the ground of bonafide requirement.

4. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the said suit, in or about May 1987, the original Defendants No.1, 2 and 3 being the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 (deleted since deceased) surrendered vacant possession of the 2nd and 3rd floors of the suit premises and also relinquished some portion in respect of the 1st floor of the suit premises to the Respondent No.1-Bank, in consideration of accepting smaller alternate premises on the 1st floor of the said building and for certain compensation.

5. The possession of the 2nd and 3rd floors was acquired by the Respondent No.1-Bank in May 1987. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the same, Respondent No.1 did not amend the plaint and continued the suit against the Defendants.

6. The Defendants filed their respective written statements. That issues were framed on 14th May, 1999, and even on the date of the framing of the issues, the suit premises were described in the plaint as comprising 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the said property. That, additional issues were framed on 23rd June, 2008, and even on the date of framing of the additional issues, the suit premises were described as consisting of 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the said property.

7. The Respondent No.1-Bank filed evidence of PW-1 on 10th October, 2008 with the list of documents and an order was passed on the said documents on 12th August, 2009. The PW-1 was cross-examined from 10th September, 2009 to 3rd September, 2011.

8. While the petitioners’ evidence was in progress, the Respondent No.1-Bank filed application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating therein paragraph 2A for amendment of prayer clause (a) to the plaint. The said amendment was carried out on 12th January, 2016. By the said amendment the Plaintiffs added paragraph 2A and it is submitted that for the first time it was disclosed that in May-1987 the Defendants No.2 and 3 had surrendered the vacant possession of the 2nd and 3rd floors of the subject building/said property and relinquished the tenancy rights in respect of the first floor without handing over possession of the 1st floor and in consideration of accepting a smaller premises on the first floor of the said building and certain compensation. The said paragraph 2A is usefully quoted as under :-

“2A. Pending the suit, in about May 1987 the Defendant No.1, 2, 3, surrendered vacant possession of 2nd and 3rd floors of the Suit Premises and also relinquished (without handing over possession to Plaintiff their tenancy in respect of the 1st floor in consideration of accepting a smaller alternate premises on the 1st floor of suit Building and certain compensation. In view of the subsequent event, the Deft. No.1, 2 and 3 are now tenant only in respect of