Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated November 23, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.125 of 1995 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the opposite parties.
(2.) THE short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that one Smt. Jyotirmoyee Das instituted a suit being Title Suit No.125 of 1995 for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. with regard to the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, devolution of interest by a registered deed took place and the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein became the owners of the premises in suit. THEy were substituted accordingly and they were proceeding with the suit. After lapse of three years, they filed an application for amendment of the plaint contending that they also require the premises in suit for their own use and occupation. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the defendant/petitioner has come up with this application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the original plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. After devolution of interest, the present plaintiffs/opposite parties herein are continuing with the said suit on the same cause of action. After lapse of three years from the date of devolution of interest, they filed the application for amendment incorporating the ground of recovery of possession on the ground of their own use and occupation. Mr. J. R. Chatterjee, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the previous grounds of eviction have not been deleted. Subsequently, upon devolution of interest, the present plaintiffs have prayed for the ground of reasonable requirement without deletion of the earlier ground of reasonable requirement of the erstwhile owner. So, if the suit is proceeded with in the manner and as per amendment by the impugned order, it would create a confusion. Mr. Chatterjee also submits that the Sub-Section 3A of the Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is a bar to allow such amendment. The plaintiff/opposite parties cannot incorporate the ground of reasonable requirement in the suit instituted by the previous owner. He also submits that if the opposite parties want to incorporate the ground of reasonable requirement, they are required to institute a fresh suit on that ground. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the decisions reported in 1996 WLC Rajasthan UC 3 and 1987 Supple 1 SCC 630.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, submits that the suit was filed for recovery of possession by the erstwhile owner on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. After devolution of interest, the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein are proceeding with the suit on the selfsame ground but they did not press for the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of 1956 Act initially because three years had not lapsed from the date of purchase. But as soon as the locking period of three years has been completed as per provisions of the Section 13(3A) of the said 1956 Act, the plaintiffs are at liberty to pray for a decree for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement. In support of his contention Mr. Roy has referred to a number of decisions such as, AIR 1983 SC 319, AIR 1975 SC 1146, AIR 1989 Cal 192 and 1992 (11) CHN 407 and thus he submits that amendment can well be allowed. He also submits that by the proposed amendment, the character of the suit is not changed. Previously, it was a suit for recovery of possession and after amendment of the plaint, the character of the suit remains the same, that is, for recovery of possession. So, the defendant is not prejudiced in any way. The prayer for relief has not been changed at all. He also submits that at the time of consideration of the application for amendment of the plaint, the merit of the application shall not be considered. It shall be dealt with at the time of trial.;