The court can allow the amendment of the plaint in a second appeal to take into consideration the fact of sub-letting which, according to the plaintiff, has taken place during the pendency of the appeal.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th January 1968 passed by Sri P. K. Banerjee, Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1000 of 1967 affirming those dated 4th May, 1967 passed by Sri R. K. Ghatak, Munsif, 2nd Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 483 of 1963.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that she requires the suit premises for her own personal use and occupation. The defendant contested the suit

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif found that the plaintiff failed to prove that she requires the said premises for her own use and occupation. In that view of his finding the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal on September 20, 1976 an application was filed for amendment of the plaint which became necessary in view of the decision of B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan. The application was allowed and paragraph 6-A was incorporated in the plaint. Additional issues were also framed. Another application was filed on 9th of August 1977 for further amendment of the plaint for the purpose of taking into consideration some subsequent events which happened during the pendency of the second appeal. This application is very much opposed by the respondent. In this application it is stated that in the month of June 1976 the petitioner has come to know that in the year 1974 during the pendency of the second appeal the opposite party has sublet a portion of the suit premises to one Satyendra Kumar Roy, who is running a business there named and styled as "m/s. Innervias View X-Ray and Electro Therapy" and has taken out a trade licence from the Calcutta Corporation for running the said business in the suit premises. The petitioner states that the said subletting was done without the knowledge and prior consent of the petitioner and as such the opposite party has disentitled himself to the protection of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and rendered himself liable to ejectment. It has further been stated that in the interest of justice and in order to shorten the litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is necessary for the petitioner that the plaint should be amended by inserting two new paragraphs therein alter paragraph No. 6-A. Those new paragraphs have been numbered as 7-A and 7-B in the petition. Previously a similar application was filed and while disposing of the application on July 7, 1977 it was stated that the other application will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. The said application was opposed by the respondent and an affidavit of the respondent dated 2nd February 1977 and an affidavit of S. K. Roy dated 1st of March 1977 were filed: In those affidavits the story of subletting has been completely denied. It is not now necessary for me to decide whether in fact the respondent sublet the premises as alleged by the appellant. I am only required to consider whether such an application for taking into consideration the subsequent events of subletting can be allowed at this stage.

( 5 ) MR. Promotha Nath Mitter, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of his contention first refers to a decision (Tinkari Das v. Jamuna Bala Dasi ). In this case it was a suit for recovery of possession of leased property on eviction of tenant on the ground of forfeiture of property. It was held that the Court could allow the amendment to add the additional ground of determination of lease by efflux of time. It was further held that for shortening the litigation and for ends of justice the Court is entitled to take into consideration the subsequent events even if there was a change in the ground of eviction where the nature and character of suit, which was for recovery of possession of the suit property on