P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) These three appeals are by the Plaintiff. They arise out of three suits for ejectment, brought by the Plaintiff, which was the common landlord, against three different tenants. The suits involve common questions of law and fact except that in one of the suits there was an additional special defence.
(2.) Ejectment was claimed by the Plaintiff on the allegation, inter alia, that the tenancies in suit had been duly determined by appropriate notices to quit and, further, there was also service of the requisite notices of suit and that the suit premises were required by the Plaintiff for its own occupation. In the original plaint this latter allegation was made along with a rider that the suit premises were required for building and rebuilding and were to be built and rebuilt for the purpose of the Plaintiff's occupation.
(3.) In the course of the suit the Plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint by striking out the case of requirement for building and rebuilding and confining it to a case solely of requirement for the Plaintiff's own occupation. The learned trial Judge rejected this prayer for amendment, but at the same time at the final hearing of the suit he appears to have conceded the Plaintiff's request for consideration of the question of the Plaintiff's requirement of the suit premises for its own occupation. In substance, however, there was no material difference, as even in the original plaint and the original case, made by the Plaintiff, the requirement pleaded was for the Plaintiff's own occupation though, as we have said above, with the added rider 'after building and rebuilding'. We feel, therefore, that in the circumstances the Plaintiff's prayer for amendment even on the learned Judge's own showing, should have been allowed. That, however, would not be of much material consequence as eventually, in our view, the learned trial Judge's decree of dismissal of the suits will have to be affirmed.;