Writ petition filed by landlords challenging an order from the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, which allowed an amendment application by the plaintiff, Nilofer Abhijit Gupta, in a Declaratory Suit of Tenancy. The landlords opposed the amendment and the inclusion of new defendants, while the plaintiff and other respondents presented counterarguments. The court analyzed the necessity and timing of the amendment, considering relevant legal principles and precedents. Ultimately, the court quashed the trial court's order, deeming the amendment application as lacking due diligence and introducing a new plea post-trial, and directed an expedited hearing of the eviction suit.

1. Rule and Introduction

   • Rule and Consent: The writ petition is taken up for final hearing with consent from all counsel.
   • Petition Overview: Filed by landlords challenging an order allowing the amendment application by the plaintiff in a Declaratory Suit of Tenancy.

2. Facts

   • Landlords and Premises: Petitioners own the Orient Club building in Mumbai.
   • Eviction Suit: Filed by landlords in 2007 against Ahmed Khairaz and Nilofer Abhijit Gupta.
   • Declaratory Suit: Filed by Nilofer in 2008 against the landlords.
   • Legal Heirs Issue: Legal heirs of Ahmed Khairaz were included after his death in 2012.
   • Common Evidence: Both suits were clubbed together in 2016 for common evidence.
   • Amendment Application: Nilofer sought to amend the Declaratory Suit in 2018.

3. Submissions

   • Landlords' Arguments:
     • Delay and introduction of a new case by Nilofer.
     • Amendments post-trial are impermissible.
     • Inter-family disputes should be resolved in Civil Court, not Rent Court.
   • Plaintiff’s Arguments:
     • Tenancy claims by heirs.
     • The amendment provides alternative claims.
   • Other Respondents’ Arguments:
     • New defendants are necessary parties.
     • The amendment introduces delay and lacks due diligence.

4. Analysis and Conclusion

   • Court's Analysis:
     • Reviewed submissions and documents.
     • Examined the amendment's necessity and legal principles.
   • Conclusion:
     • Necessity of joining necessary parties to fully resolve the dispute.
     • Amendments should not change the nature of the suit post-trial.

5. Proposed Amendment

   • Addition of Paragraph 9A: Nilofer seeks to include alternative claims and disputes the claims of other heirs.

6. Definition of Tenant under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

   • Section 7(15)(d) defines tenant, including family members residing at the time of the tenant's death.

7. Nilofer's Amendment Request (2018)

   • Proposed a new claim for tenancy declaration in the absence of an agreement among heirs.

8. Opposition to Amendment

   • Legal heirs of Ahmed Khairaz and the landlord opposed the amendment.

9. Trial and Delay in Proceedings

   • Trial began in 2011, but cross-examination did not commence until 2018.

10. Court’s View on Delay and Due Diligence

    • Amendment after ten years due to "oversight" is unacceptable. Lack of due diligence by the Plaintiff.

11. Supreme Court Precedents on Amendments

    • References to South Konkan Distilleries and M Revanna cases disallowing amendments post-trial.

12. Rejection of Amendment Application

    • Based on the delay and introduction of a new plea, the amendment was rejected.

13. Adding Legal Heirs of Ahmed Khairaz

    • Legal heirs were added as defendants in 2018, with the Court finding no sufficient reason for this delay.

14. Court’s Analysis of Jurisdiction

    • Discussed Section 35 of the MRC Act and the competence of Civil Court to decide inter-se rights among heirs.

15. Case References and Distinguishing Factors

    • Analysis of various judgments related to joining parties and amendment of pleadings.

16. Final Order

    • The Trial Court's order allowing the amendment was quashed, and the suits were directed for expedited hearing.