The second appellate court has the power to consider subsequent events through an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the plaintiff-landlord has not filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17.

( 1 ) ORIGINATION of this second appeal is from the challenge thrown to the judgment and decree dated 11. 5. 1990 passed by the learned additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipur in Title Appeal No. 270 of 1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30. 5. 1989 passed by the 1st Additional Munsif at Alipur in T. S. No. 22/87.

( 2 ) THE instant case concerns a suit for ejectment and recovery of khas possession along with prayer for mesne profits. The case made out in the plaint in brief is, inter alia, as follows:-

( 3 ) THE plaintiff Pannalal Roy is the owner of the suit premises. The original defendant Tarapada Mitra was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property at a rental of Rs. 150/- per month. The allegation is that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in the matter of payment of rent since november 1981. He has been intentionally using the varandah as kitchen and the kitchen as bed room in order to damage the suit property and as a result the condition of the suit property has been deteriorated. The defendant has made unauthorised construction of permanent nature covering the landing portion of the staircase of the second floor of the suit property without consent of the plaintiff. The defendant is guilty of causing annoyance and nuisance. The plaintiff also made out a case that the plaintiff reasonably and suitably requires the suit property for his own use and occupation and also that for his family members. The plaintiff alleged that he has another tin-shed house at Baruipur but the same is not at all sufficient for his residence. The tenancy of the defendant has been determined by a notice of ejectment which was sent to the defendant under registered post through the learned advocate for the plaintiff but the defendant continued to occupy the suit property and hence this suit was filed.

( 4 ) THE defendant Tarapada Mitra contested the suit by filing a written statement. He denied all the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant also denied that he is a defaulter in payment of rent. His contention is that he has not done anything by which the condition of the suit property has been deteriorated. The defendant also alleged that he has effected various essential repairs at his own costs. Those repairs have been made with the approval of the plaintiff and his authorised agent. He has not done any unauthorised construction as alleged in the plaint. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The defendant also stated in the written statement that the notices to quit was illegal and insufficient. It may be mentioned relevantly that subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings the original defendant Tarapada Mitra has expired and his heirs and successors pratima Mitra and others have been substituted by order dated 10. 3. 2000.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforementioned pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-1. Is the suit maintainable as framed in law? 2. Is the notice to quit legal, valid and sufficient? Was it duly served? 3. Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent? 4. Is the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for use and occupation? 5. Has the plaintiff possessed any other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere? 6. Is the defendant guilty of causing annoyance and nuisance? 7. Has the defendant violated the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of Transfer of Property Act? 8. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the decree as prayed for? 9. To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge decreed the suit on contest with cost and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises and deliver khas possession thereof to the plaint within two months from the date of the order. In default the plaintiff was granted liberty to take possession of the suit premises by executing the d