Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order no.118 dated July 17, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Arambag in Title Suit No.13 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant.
(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.13 of 1996 for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement, default, etc. THE defendant/petitioner herein was contesting the said suit all along. After his death, his heirs, that is, the present petitioners have been substituted. THE contention of the defendant is that during pendency of the suit, the landlord/owner got other accommodations and his accommodations were rented to other persons. This fact was not known to him earlier and so, he filed the application for additional written statement when he became aware of the fact. That application for filing written statement was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is hether the order impugned should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and default, etc. was filed in the year 1996. The original defendant was contesting the suit all along by filing a written statement. Evidence of both the sides was completed on March 22, 2002 and the next date was fixed on April 18, 2002 for hearing argument over the suit. Thereafter, the defendant filed Hazira on April 18, 2002 but, he filed an application on May 7, 2002 praying for time for argument. According to his prayer, the next date for hearing argument was fixed on May 15, 2002. On that day, the plaintiff filed an application for adjournment which was granted and the next date was fixed on June 28, 2002 for hearing argument. On that day, the defendant again filed an application for adjournment of hearing and the next date was fixed on July 10, 2002 for hearing argument. When the suit was taken for hearing argument on July 10, 2002, the defendant filed a petition that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff got accommodations and those were let out to other persons.
(3.) IT may be noted herein that the suit premises is a shop room situated at the ground floor and the defendant is running a sweetmeat shop thereat. The plaintiff has categorically stated that he wants the premises in suit for running a business thereat for his son. Evidence has been adduced according to the stances of the parties thereon.;