SATYANARAYAN GANAGARAM GUNNAL THRU. POA vs COMMISSIONER PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PUNE AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

2026:BHC-AS:22914 wp 12605 of 2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12605 OF 2025 Satyanarayan Gangaram Gunnal ... Petitioner versus Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mogre for Petitioner. Mr. R.M.Pethe, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms.Lalita Panchakshari, for Respondent Nos.4 to 7. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. RESERVED ON : 17 MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 8 JUNE 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 4 July 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune, whereby the substantive part of the prayer for amendment in the plaint in SCS No.1467 of 2023 instituted by the Petitioner, came to be rejected. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated, as under : 3.1 The Petitioner claimed that he was in the occupation of two rooms, admeasuring 300 sq.ft. (the demised premises) in an old house, situated at SSP 1/26 wp 12605 of 2025.doc CTS No.1164, Nana Peth, Pune (the suit premises). There were in all six tenants in the various portions of the demised premises. Late Sadashiv Rajaram Mithapelli was the original landlord. After the demise of the original landlord, Defendant Nos.4 to 9 became the landlord and the owner of the demised premises. Defendant No.3, a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of builders and developers, undertook the development of the suit premises. Multiple Development Agreements were executed in favour of Defendant No.3 by the owners of the suit premises. 3.2 The Plaintiff claimed, Defendant