(1). The plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 19th February, 2009 vide Order No.48. passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court at Sealdha in Ejectment Suit No.380 of 2005. The defendant is aggrieved by the said order.

(2). Hence the instant Revisional Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant/petitioner herein before this Court. Heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case.

(3). The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein on various grounds under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. On perusal of the plaint, this Court finds that eviction of the defendant was sought for on the ground of default in payment of rent, for violation of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and also on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff as well as for the members of his family. The said suit which was filed sometime in February, 2009 was registered as Ejectment Case No.380 of 2005.

(4). The defendant was contesting the said suit by filing written objection therein denying the allegations made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of their claim for introducing two additional grounds of eviction in the plaint.

(5). On perusal of the proposed amendment this Court finds that the plaintiffs wanted to introduce that the wife of the defendant no.1 namely Dr. Jolly Roy Chowdhury is the absolute owner of a self-content flat lying and situate at 25, Roy Charan Ghosh Lane, Kolkata 700039 being flat no. A-5/8 (HIG) Purba wherein the defendant no.1 resides with his wife.

(6). The plaintiffs further wanted to introduce that the original tenant Smt. Krishna Roy Chowdhury predecessor of the defendants died on 18th April, 2003 leaving behind her one son and a daughter who have inherited the said tenancy right by operation of law. The said son and the daughter of the original tenant are the defendants in the suit. Since five years have already expired from the date of death of the original tenant Smt. Krishna Roy Chowdhury, the right of the legal heirs of the original tenant to enjoy or continue with the tenancy came to an end on 17th April, 2008 and thus, the defendants have lost their protection against eviction and thereby they are liable to be evicted on said ground also.

(7). Thus, it appears that the plaintiffs, in fact, wanted to introduce an additional ground of eviction as mentioned in Section 6(1)(j) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiffs also wanted to introduce that in view of the definition of tenant as mentioned in Section 2(g) of the said Act, the heirs of the original tenant cannot get any protection against eviction after expiry of the period of five years from the death of the original tenant as their tenancy came to an end after the expiry of five years from the date of death of their mother.

(8). These are the two grounds which were made available to the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit due to occurrence of subsequent events. The plaintiff wanted to introduce these grounds in his plaint by way of amendment.

(9). The learned Trial Judge was pleased to allow the plaintiffs prayer for such amendment. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that landlord cannot seek eviction of his tenant on any ground which did not exist on the date of issuance of the eviction notice. He contended that eviction notice is a part of the cause of action of an ejectment suit. He further contended that a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant