ANAND PARANJPE AND OTHERS Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of tenant-defendant against the decree for ejectment from the suit accommodation has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) In this Court respondents No. 1 and 2 have made an application for amendment of their plaint. By this amendment they want to plead that respondent No. 1 Anand Paranjpe has come on transfer to Itarsi. The house is, therefore, needed for bona fide residence as the plaintiff has no other house of their own for that purpose at Itarsi. Apparently, this amendment is required to be made on account of events, which have taken place after filing of this appeal. The amendment proposed is necessary for full and final adjudication of the controversy. Although the application is opposed, I do not see any reason why the application should not be allowed as it is now well settled that the Court is entitled to take into consideration subsequent events. The effect of allowing this application would be to permit the appellants to controvert the facts so introduced. Necessarily this will involve a fresh issue and evidence on that issue. For this purpose it may be necessary to remand the case after setting aside the decree in question.

(3.) The application for amendment is allowed. The necessary amendment be incorporated in the plaint here only. The appellant shall be entitled to amend the written-statement in view of this amendment. The lower appellate Court may frame additional issue or issues and may either try itself or obtain finding thereupon from the trial Court. Then this appeal shall be decided on merits. The lower Appellate Court shall also bear-in-mind that it must also find whether the plaintiffs have any other suitable accommodation for the purpose of residence at Itarsi.