DINESHKUMAR JIVANLAL JOBANPUTRA Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Advocate S. V. Purohit, for petitioner - tenant, Advocate A. S. Mardikar, for respondent no. 3 and learned AGP Mr. Jaiswal, for respondent No. 1. No body appears for other respondents though served.

(2.) In view of the arguments I find that writ Petition can be disposed of by short order, it is therefore, not necessary to refer to all facts in detail. By relying upon the judgment of this Court reported at 1979 B. C. I. 86 : 1979 Mh. L. J. 656 in the case of (Jagdishprasad Kesarmal Sabu Vs. Dharamdas Tharurnal Hasnani and another) 1. The learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that need of his landlord i. e. the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 no longer survives and hence Writ Petition needs to be allowed.

(3.) The arguments that need does not survives any longer is based upon the subsequent events namely two sale deeds dated 3. 9. 2004 executed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 in favour of (1) Rahul gopikisan Mandhania and (2) Dinesh premprakash Mandhania. The petitioner has incorporated this subsequent events by moving application for amendment. The said application for amendment has been allowed on 13. 11. 2006. The application for amendment appears to have been moved on 16. 1. 2006.