1 951-wp-11788-2021.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11788 OF 2021 Mukund Devidas Kango Deleted Dhaval Mukesh Tekwani And Another VERSUS Prem Gopichand Ahuja And Another ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bajaj Anil S. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Wani Girish V. ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 27, 2026 P.C.: 1. One Mukund Devidas Kango had instituted suit for eviction against respondents being R.C.S. No.542/2002 on the ground of bonafide need, non-user of premises, default in payment of rent as also on the ground that the respondents/defendants had secured alternate premises. 2. During pendency of the suit, original plaintiff/Mukund Devidas Kango sold the said property to present petitioner. The name of present petitioner is accordingly substituted as plaintiff in original plaint. The relevant amendments in this regard are also incorporated in plaint pursuant to Court orders. Having substituted his name as plaintiff, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of plaint in order to introduce grounds relating to bonafide need of the petitioner/purchaser. This application is rejected by learned Trial Court. Present petition is filed in order to challenge the said order 2026:BHC-AUG:38903 2 951-wp-11788-2021.odt dated 09.02.2021 passed below Exhibit-150 in R.C.S. No.542/2002. 3. In the considered opinion of this Court, refusal to permit amendment of plaint on the ground of bonafide need does not cause any prejudice to present petitioner/newly added plaintiff, since bonafide need as is well-known is a recurring cause of action and the petitioner/plaintiff can obviously institute a fresh suit for eviction against the respondents on the ground of bonafide need. This Court is also of the opinion that the application for amendment is rightly rejected since it was moved at the stage when evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was concluded and that of the defendants was part heard. 4. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the impugned order. Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to institute a fresh suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide need against respondents/defendants. The rejection of application for amendment will not be a bar for institution of fresh suit on the ground of bonafide need. 6. Since the suit is of the year 2002, the Trial Court is requested to decide the same as early as possible and in any case before 31.03.2027. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//