JYOTI CORPORATION Vs. ARUN VIRAJLAL GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions contain common question of law and facts and, therefore, are being decided by common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the suit structure. Respondent No.1 in each petition is the occupant. Respondent No.2- Corporation issued notice for demolition of structure occupied by respondent No.1 in exercise of power under Sec. 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Respondent No.1 in all civil writ petitions filed different suits challenging notice issued under sec. 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The ground for challenge in each suit is similar. Parties led their oral evidence. According to the petitioner, in the cross-examination of the owner, it is revealed that the owner settled dispute with similarly situated occupants by paying different amounts. Schedule of one of the agreement contains a recital that such structure was in existence since 1960. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed a chamber summons for amendment of the plaint to incorporate pleadings in relation to alleged agreement executed by the owner with similarly situated occupants. It is also averred that the City Civil Court protected the occupants of similarly situated shops in a civil suit. Broadly the amendment incorporates aforesaid two factors.

(3.) The trial Court by the impugned order allowed the amendment. The petitioner (owner) has, therefore, filed present petitions.