In a case of the present nature, the Courts should be slow in refusing amendment or while dealing with application for amendment, the attitude should be liberal and that too for the purpose of doing substantial justice and not to do any injustice.

M.N. Roy, J.

The revisional application, which was contested by the defendant opposite party, was at the instance of the plaintiff petitioner, against order no. 36 dated 14th December, 1987, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Baruipur, in Title Suit no. 74 of 1987. By the order as impeached, a prayer for amendment under Or.6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected on contest with costs.

2. Admittedly, in February, 1986, the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of her reasonable requirement. The suit was initially filed at Alipore and thereafter, transferred to Baruipur, for determination. The suit was one for recovery of khas possession, damages and mesne profits. There is also no doubt or dispute that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was amended in September, 1986 and thereby, in a proceeding of the present nature, the party applying for necessary orders on reasonable requirement, is required to establish that he or she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

3. In the plaint, such statement was not appropriately mentioned and Mr. Das Gupta pointed out that since the suit was filed in February, 1986 prior to the amendment in September, 1986, as indicated above, the necessary statements were not made or available.

4. The written statement in the proceeding was filed in or about March, 1987 and amongst others, in paragraph 16 of the statement, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff obtained delivery of an adjacent flat, but relet the same at a higher rate and as such, she had no need of it and in fact, wanted to get back the flat in question, for which the concerned suit has been filed, only to relet the same at a higher rate.

5. After going through the order as impeached, it appeared to us that the learned court below was of view that the application in question was not made bona fide and the amendment, as asked for, if allowed, would mean a departure from the pleadings. It was the case of the plaintiff that the amendment as asked for was necessary, to elucidate the point of reasonable requirement after amendment, and also to establish that the plaintiff was compelled to let out the northern flat of the suit premises, for augmenting her monthly income. There is no dispute that the plaintiff, at all material time, owned and still owns two flats.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, Mr. Das Gupta indicated that the plaintiff is a poor widow, having two issues and until she received some employment, the particulars whereof have been pleaded in the petition, she was staying with her parents and since she has been employed now, she wants to live on her own with her issues and independently.

7. Mr. Das Gupta, appearing in support of the application, contended that since the suit was one for reasonable requirement, so even if the proposed amendment was made during the examination in Chief of the plaintiff or even after her father was examined, the nature and character of the suit could not have been changed, if the amendment as asked for, was allowed. In support of his submissions, reference was first made by Mr. Das Gupta to the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1267. In that case, the plaintiff, who was the manager of a joint family, and was carrying on the business under a business name, and when objection was taken by the defendant that the firm being an unregistered firm, was incompetent to sue, applied for the amendment of the plaint, stating that he himself had intended to file and had in fact filed the action on behalf of the family, in the business name. It has been observed by the Supreme Court, on the facts of such case, that the amendment, as asked for could not have been refused, since the rules and procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence inadvertence or even infraction of