Court ruled that amendments during appeal are restricted by specific conditions under CPC, adhering to time limits and maintaining the integrity of existing consent terms.

WP No.9128 of 2014:

The petitioner society—Omkar Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd.—owns the property now in respondent Kishore Kalyanji Badani’s possession. Kishore got that property with the assignment of tenancy from Jatashankar Kaluram Tiwari, the original tenant. He is no more. As he was the second defendant in the suit, now his legal representatives are on record. So Kishore was the assignee and Jatashankar the assignor. The deed was registered.

2. The Society filed RAE Suit No. 1050 of 1995 against both the assignor and the assignee for eviction on the grounds of subletting and structural changes to the property. The trial Court decreed the suit on 29.08.2008. After that, the assignee filed Appeal No. 618 of 2008 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai. In that appeal, the assignee filed an interim application below Exhibit 22 of 2010, to have his written statement amended. That allowed, the Society has come before this Court with this Writ petition, assailing the Appellate Bench’s impugned order, dated 06.08.2014.WP No.5599 of 2010:

3. With a suit getting decreed, the persons in possession can no longer claim to be a tenant. His stay, pending the appeal, entails the lessor to claim compensation or damages. So the Society applied to the Appellate Bench below Ext. 6 for interim compensation. Through its order, 11.06.2010, the Bench directed the assignee to deposit the contractual rent and, in addition, Rs.31.200/- per month regularly.

4. Questioning the Appellant Bench’s order, dt.11.06.2010, the assignee has filed this writ petition. Background:

5. Both the Society and the assignee have agreed that one Hasan Khan Abdulla Khan was the owner of a piece of vacant property. In July 1972 he leased it to one Anil Ramchandra Garge for 99 years. Later, Garge constructed tenements and let them out to 16 lessees. But, later, Hasan Khan Abdulla Khan filed R.A.E. Suit No.373/1232 of 1984 for eviction against the original lessee Garge. In that suit, he also arrayed all the Garge’s 16 tenants as parties, the assignor being one of them.

6. As seen from the record, the suit ended in a compromise vis-à-vis the 16 tenants. But against Garge, it was decreed. It seems the decree has become final, too. The 16 tenants, in fact, formed the society—Omkar Co-op. Hsg. Society—and that Society is now before the Court. The assignor was one of those 16 tenants; he was, thus, not only a party to the suit but also to the consent terms. He seems to have assigned his tenancy rights to the assignee, the first respondent.

7. In the course of time, the Society filed RAE Suit No.1050 of 1995. It wanted the assignor’s and the assignee’s eviction on the grounds of subletting and unauthorized structural changes. The Small Cause Court decreed the suit in 2008. Then, the assignee alone filed Appeal No.618 of 2008 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court.

8. Incidentally, the assignor never contested the case during his lifetime; nor have his legal heirs after his death.

9. Pending that appeal, the assignee filed an application Below Ext.22 of 2010—two years after his filing the appeal and fifteen years after the Society’s filing the suit—that he should amend his written statement filed decades ago, so to say. The assignee also filed Application under Exhibit No.23 of 2010 to produce certified copies of all the proceedings and orders passed in RAE & E Suit No.373/1232 of 1984 to be read in evidence, and to be permitted “to lead such oral evidence on the said certified copies as may be required.” Through an order, d