DINESH KUMAR CHAWLA Vs. MAHABIR KARMKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVICTION Suit No. 7 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff -opposite party against the defendant -petitioner under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1982 was decreed on the ground of personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent. The defendant -petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the said decree, being Eviction Appeal No. 10 of 1999.

(2.) DURING pendency of the aforesaid Eviction Appeal, defendant filed a petition for amendment in the written statement on account of alleged subsequent event. Prayer was made to add a fresh paragraph as para -14(a) in the written statement, which runs as follows :

(3.) IN my opinion, the approach of the Court of appeal below was not correct. Even if in his evidence, plaintiff denied Sanjay Srivastava to be his tenant but no finding was recorded by the trial Court in this regard, and if the premises in question, which was just situated by the side of the suit premises, was vacated, an opportunity must have been given to the defendant to bring this fact in the written statement by way of amendment and to lead evidence thereon, of course, with liber - ty to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal, in order to show that on account of the said subsequent development plaintiffs requirement in the suit premises was not bona fide.