Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 23.08.2005 in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 46 of 2002 whereby, application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint was allowed, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) Title (Eviction) Suit No. 46 of 2002 was instituted by one Rupa Devi for ejection of defendant Surendra Prasad Burnwal (petitioner herein). The respondents are the substituted legal heirs of the original plaintiff. It was pleaded that Schedule-B premises was required by the plaintiff for use and occupation of her younger son namely, Kundan Ram who was unemployed and the plaintiff wanted her son to start a grocery shop in the Schedule-B premises. The eviction was sought also on the ground of default in payment of agreed rent from October, 2001. During the pendency of the suit, the legal heirs of the plaintiff were substituted in her place. An application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC was filed by the substituted plaintiffs for incorporating para 9 A in the plaint which reads as under; 9A. That plaintiffs have a bona fide requirement of the Schedule 'B' premises for their personal use and occupation since there is a shortage of accommodation in their residential house to accommodate the guest and relatives in the said residential house which is near the Schedule B premises and as such Schedule 'B' premises is more suitable for accommodate their guests and relatives and as such required in same reasonably bonafidely and in good faith for the said purpose. ;