Bombay HC Rejects Tenant’s Late Bid To Explain Bangalore Address Records, Citing Her Claim Of Living In Mumbai Flat Since Birth And No Due Diligence

The Petitioners, landlords of the suit property, brought a possession suit against the Respondent-tenant under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, alleging non-user of the premises.

The Respondent’s 2022 Written Statement claimed that she had continuously resided there from birth.

After the Petitioners produced documents indicating that she had resided in Bengaluru, the Respondent sought, in February 2026, to amend her Written Statement to explain her residence and connections in both Bengaluru and Mumbai.

The Trial Court allowed the amendment. The Petitioners challenged that order, contending that the trial had commenced, the proposed facts were within the Respondent’s personal knowledge, and the amendment would retract an admission.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, but its proviso bars an amendment after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier; due diligence is a jurisdictional requirement (Vidyabai v. Padmalatha; J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh).

Although amendments to written statements are generally considered liberally and alternative or inconsistent pleas may be available, an amendment should not withdraw an admission in a manner that irretrievably prejudices the opposite party (Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co.; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.).

The Court also referred to Haramani Sahoo v. Lalita Nayak on the proviso’s due-diligence requirement.

The trial had commenced when issues were framed in October 2022.

The facts proposed for insertion—including the Respondent’s marriage, residences, property ownership and medical treatment—concerned events predating her Written Statement and were within her personal knowledge.

The Petitioners’ documents prompted the amendment application, but did not make those underlying facts newly discoverable; nor did the Respondent explain the delay in seeking amendment.

The proposed pleading also qualified or contradicted her original assertion of continuous residence in the suit premises, thereby risking prejudice to the Petitioners’ reliance on that admission.

The Trial Court therefore erred in allowing the amendment without satisfying the proviso’s due-diligence requirement and without adequately addressing the effect on the prior admission.

It quashed and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 1 October 2026, dismissed the Respondent’s amendment application at Exhibit 35, and allowed the writ petition; Rule was made absolute.