The Bombay High Court dismissed an application to amend the written statement in a 21-year-old ejectment suit. The defendant sought to introduce a letter dated October 13, 2002, allegedly signed by the original plaintiff, after the latter’s death. The amendment was intended to challenge the claim of rent arrears. However, the Court found that allowing such an amendment would severely prejudice the plaintiff’s heirs and deemed the defendant's application as not bona fide.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Morarji Hariram (since deceased) and his legal heirs.
   • Respondents: M/s. Ramnik Dairy Farm and others.

2. Suit Background:

   • The suit was filed in 2003 for recovery of possession of the premises due to arrears of rent.
   • Amendments to the plaint occurred thrice due to various developments, including the death of the original plaintiff.

3. Disputed Letter:

   • The defendant introduced a letter dated October 13, 2002, allegedly written by the original plaintiff, which claimed that certain financial transactions exempted the defendant from paying rent.
   • The letter was introduced after the original plaintiff's death, preventing him from providing testimony.

4. Trial Court's Decision:

   • The application for amending the written statement was rejected by the Small Causes Court in 2021.

5. Appellate Court's Reversal:

   • The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court overturned the Trial Court’s order, allowing the amendment with a cost of ₹5,000.

6. High Court Ruling:

   • The High Court set aside the Appellate Bench's decision, reaffirming the Trial Court's order to reject the amendment.
   • Key reasons included severe prejudice to the plaintiff’s heirs, the questionable timing of the amendment, and the lack of bona fides.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court emphasized that although amendments to written statements are typically considered more leniently, they must not cause serious injustice or undue prejudice to the opposite party. The amendment was filed 16 years after the suit was initiated and only after the death of the original plaintiff, which raised suspicions of bad faith. The Court concluded that introducing the amendment at such a late stage would severely disadvantage the plaintiff’s heirs, who could not adequately contest the validity of the 2002 letter.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 15(3), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: The defendant sought to invoke this section to justify non-payment of rent, citing the letter dated October 13, 2002.
• Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): The provision under which the defendant sought amendment of the written statement.