SACHCHIDANAND KISHORE VARMA Vs. HEERANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I am disposing of the two civil revision applications as the facts and the question of law are common and identical.

(2.) The question is as to whether the amendment of the plaints of the suits giving rise to these applications, on the facts and in the circumstances mentioned hereunder. should have been allowed by the trial court?

(3.) Two title suits were instituted in the court of the Third Munsif at Patna for eviction of the opposite parties under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Whereas Title Suit No. 152 of 1976, corresponding to C. R. No. 596 of 1979, was instituted by the petitioner himself, the other title suit was instituted by the father of the petitioner 1 who died during the pendency of the application in this Court. The grounds for eviction of the opposite parties in both the cases are common, namely, 'expiry of the period of tenancy'. According to the case of the petitioners, the opposite party in the first case stopped remitting the monthly rent since November. 1976 and the opposite party in C. R. 881 since March, 1975. Applications were filed for amendment of the respective plaints on 18-1-1979 and 2-2-1979. seeking to add a paragraph in each of the plaints as para. 11A, making out a case for eviction of the opposite parties on the ground of default in not lawfully paying or remitting the rent for various months, of the premises in question. Both the opposite parties opposed the prayer for amendment, inter alia, on the ground that the amendments, if allowed, would change the nature of the suits as well as introduce a new cause of action to their great prejudice. The trial court, however, by the impugned orders, rejected the application on the ground that they did not appear to be necessary, although it further observed that the question would be considered at the time of hearing of the suits. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present applications. The opposite parties have chosen not to appear in this Court and, therefore, the matter was heard ex parte.