Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of this petition at this stage itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub- Judge-8th, Patna in Title Eviction Suit No.78/2012 by which the learned court below rejected the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner dated 30.06.2016 on the ground that the amendment sought for was for adding the relief based purely on title and if the amendment sought for was allowed then it would change the nature of the case which was not permissible under the scheme of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as ‘BBC Act’).

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Eviction Suit No.78/2012 seeking following reliefs:—

“(i) On adjudication of the facts a decree for Eviction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with regard to Schedule-2 premises of the plaint and thereafter the plaintiff be put in exclusive possession over the same at the cost of the defendant.

(ii) The arrears of rent for four months to the tune of Rs. 28,000/- excluding electric bill be also paid to the plaintiff with interest pendenelite.

(iii) The defendant be restrained by order of temporary injunction from transferring and changing the physical feature of the suit premises as well as cost and for other reliefs”.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the plaintiff is rightful owner and possessor of the piece of land including a three storied old residential house in the town of Patna. The property was owned by one Indira Devi, wife of late Dinanath Prasad, who was mother-in-law of the plaintiff and the said property was acquired by the mother-inlaw of the plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 14.01.1971. After purchase of the land, she constructed three storied building out of her own fund and got entered her name in the municipal records. She had been living separately from her sons and it was the plaintiff/petitioner who had been looking after her and for her services, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff-petitioner gifted her self acquired property to the plaintiff vide registered gift deed dated 04.05.2012 and the petitioner came in possession of the said property. Accordingly, necessary changes were made in the municipal records. At the same time, the defendant, who was in service in the Government of Jharkhand, prior to the execution of the aforesaid gift deed, requested his mother for accommodation of his family in a portion of the suit property for study of his children and, accordingly, he was permitted to reside there in the house. After execution of the registered gift deed in her favour, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity for which the defendant promised to vacate the same within few months. However, later on, the defendant refused to vacate the property and even refused to pay rent which was agreed earlier between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff petitioner was compelled to file Title Eviction Suit No.78 of 2012. The defendant appeared after summons and filed his written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also submitted that the defendant had already filed Title Partition Suit No.315 of 2012 which has been pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge-1, Patna against his brothers and sisters claiming unity of title and unity of possession in the suit property. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff has got fabricated the gift deed dated 04.05.2012. After filing of the written statement by the defendant, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an amendment application dated 30.06.2016 mentioning therein that there was necessity of the amendment in the plaint seekin