TARAKESWAR TEWARI Vs. RAMBAHADUR SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.