GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) EVICTION Suit No. 7 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff -opposite party against the defendant -petitioner under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1982 was decreed on the ground of personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent. The defendant -petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the said decree, being Eviction Appeal No. 10 of 1999.
(2.) DURING pendency of the aforesaid Eviction Appeal, defendant filed a petition for amendment in the written statement on account of alleged subsequent event. Prayer was made to add a fresh paragraph as para -14(a) in the written statement, which runs as follows : "14(a). That one of the house and premises, adjacent to the house and premises of the plaintiff which was occupied by one Sanjay Srivastava as a tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/ - per month has been vacated by him (Sanjay Srivastava) in the last week of July 2000. The plaintiff has inducted a new tenant Sri Sudhir Das in the said house and premises at a higher rate of rent of Rs. 1,100/ - per month. The building plan and structure of the house and premises vacated by Sri Sanjay Srivastava and occupied by Sudhir Das is more spacious in comparison to the Schedule -A premises occupation by the defendant. The tenancy of Sudhir Das under the plaintiff commenced from the month of August 2000. The defendant is attaching herewith a building plan of both the premises, in occupation of defendant and in occupation of Sudhir Das which has been marked as A and B to show the area and structure of the building. In fact, the house which has been occupied by Sudhir Das contains one more room than the Schedule A property. Had the plaintiff needed the suit premises he would not have let -out the premises vacated by Sanjay Srivastava to a new tenant Sudhir Das at a higher rate of rent." The Court of appeal below by impugned order rejected the prayer on the ground that tenancy of Sanjay Srivastava was not only denied in the trial Court, but the plaintiff had right to choose particular premises for his purpose and as such the proposed amendment in the written statement was not necessary to be allowed for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy.
(3.) IN my opinion, the approach of the Court of appeal below was not correct. Even if in his evidence, plaintiff denied Sanjay Srivastava to be his tenant but no finding was recorded by the trial Court in this regard, and if the premises in question, which was just situated by the side of the suit premises, was vacated, an opportunity must have been given to the defendant to bring this fact in the written statement by way of amendment and to lead evidence thereon, of course, with liber - ty to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal, in order to show that on account of the said subsequent development plaintiffs requirement in the suit premises was not bona fide.;