The petition challenges an order by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their plaint to add grounds of unlawful subletting and non-user of the tenanted premises. The Plaintiffs have an ongoing suit for possession since 1998, and this amendment is the ninth such change to the plaint. The Defendants argue that this amendment is untimely and based on insufficient grounds of 'oversight' and 'inadvertence.' However, the court finds that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit and does not prejudice the Defendants. The court acknowledges delays on both sides and imposes exemplary costs on the Plaintiffs for their negligent approach to prosecuting the suit.

Introduction

1. The Petitioners challenge the Small Causes Court, Mumbai's order dated 10 July 2022, allowing Plaintiffs to amend their plaint.

Background of the Case

2. The Plaintiffs filed a suit in 1998 seeking possession of the premises due to bonafide requirement and unlawful possession by some Defendants. They now seek to add grounds of unlawful subletting and non-user through an amendment.

Petitioners' Argument

3. The Petitioners argue that this is the ninth amendment in a long-pending suit, and the reasons for the amendment are merely 'oversight' and 'inadvertence,' which are insufficient as per precedent cases.

Respondents' Argument

4. The Respondents argue that the amendment does not prejudice the Petitioners and is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The amendment is needed to address the real issues in the suit.

Court's Observations

5. The court notes that the suit has been pending for 26 years with multiple amendments, mainly due to changes in the parties' status over time.

6. The Petitioners also contributed to delays by not filing their written statement for over 15 years.

Main Issue

7. The court focuses on whether the amendment changes the nature of the suit, concluding it does not, as the foundational pleadings were already present.

Court's Analysis

8. The amendment regarding non-user is linked to unlawful subletting, which was already pleaded in the unamended plaint.

9. The court discusses relevant case law, noting that 'oversight' is not always an invalid reason for amendment, especially if it does not change the nature of the suit.

10. The court finds the amendment necessary and not prejudicial to the Petitioners, who have benefited from the delay.

Conclusion and Order

17. The court modifies the Small Causes Court's order to increase the costs imposed on the Plaintiffs to Rs. 1,00,000, payable to the Mumbai District Legal Services Authority.

18. The petition is disposed of with the modified order regarding costs.