SATYA GOPAL SAHA Vs. SNEHALATA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application, moved on behalf of the defendants in a Suit for eviction, is directed against Order No. 64, dated 8th of June, 1983 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 326 of 1977. By the impugned Order the Learned Judge allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaintiff made on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party.

(2.) The Suit was fixed by the husband of the present plaintiff/opposite eviction of the defendants on the grounds of sub-letting and reasonable requirement of the then plaintiff and the members of his family including the present plaintiff, his widow. The original plaintiff died on 25th September, 1979 and an application at the instance of the present plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed on 9th of June, 1980. In the said application, it was stated on behalf of the present plaintiff that by a Deed of Gift executed on 17th of September, 1979 by her husband, the original plaintiff, she had become the sole and absolute owner of the Suit premises. On or about 27th January, 1983 on behalf of the substituted plaintiff an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking in substance to adopt for herself the ground of reasonable requirement as pleaded originally in the Plaint by her husband and also for bringing certain subsequent developments on record. By the impugned Order the Learned Judge allowed the said amendment and the tenants/defendants have moved the instant Revisional Application.

(3.) Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, appearing in support of .the Revisional Application, has strongly contended that the plaintiff having become the sole landlord on the strength of a Deed of Gift was not entitled to pray for any decree under Clause (ff) of Section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in view of the bar created by Sub-section (3A) of the said Section. According to Mr. Banerjee, on the basis of the settled principle of Law, the present plaintiff was not entitled to an amendment of the Plaint to obtain a relief for the said purpose as the Suit on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation would not be maintainable till after the expiry of three years from the date of transfers and an amendment, if allowed, would relate back to the date of institution of the Suit covering the period during which bar under sub-section (3A) operated. This, according to Mr. Banerjee, would result in encouraging circumvention of a statutory bar, condemned by this Hon'ble Court. Mr. Banerjee in support of his aforesaid contention has relied on the decisions reported in 86 CWN 841, AIR 1985 Calcutta 218, 88 CWN 379. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, appearing on behalf the plaintiff/opposite party, however, has endeavoured to distinguish the aforesaid decisions on facts. According to him, the ground of reasonable requirement under Clause (ff) was already there in the Original Plaint including the requirement of the present plaintiff as the wife of the then landlord/plaintiff and, as such, the proposed amendment, does not introduce any new cause of action or alter or vary any existing cause of action. According to Mr. Roy, the principles laid down in the cases cited by Mr. Banerjee had been so laid taking into consideration the mala fides of the plaintiffs, who tried to circumvent the statutory bar by amendment.