Debangsu Basak, J.

Five applications came up for consideration in this suit.

A centrally air-conditioned building was constructed in the city of Kolkata at Shakespeare Sarani. Such building subsequently became popularly known as air-conditioned market. The occupants of the buildings can be categorized into two groups, namely, occupants of shops and occupants of office spaces. The entire building was let out to diverse tenants.

The air-conditioned market was owned by the Defendant No. 1. The electricity at the air-conditioned market was supplied by the Defendant No. 2 through a high-tension line. A transformer was installed at the air-conditioned market for stepping down the high voltage electricity.

A Section of the tenants of shop at the air-conditioned market in Kolkata filed the instant suit after obtaining leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Plaintiff No. 3 claimed itself to be a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It claimed to be an association of tenants of the air-conditioned market.

According to the plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 was at a superior bargaining position. The Defendant No. 1 was able to dominate the will of the tenants at the air-conditioned market. The Defendant No. 1 was able to negotiate the terms and conditions of the tenancy conducive to the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 unilaterally fixed the total amount of monthly rent payable, and after such agreed rent was fixed, divide such rent into two portions, namely, service charges and air-conditioning charges according to the convenience and benefit of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 would show rent at a low figure while keeping the air-conditioning charges disproportionately high.

The plaintiffs contended that the Defendant No. 1 broke up the component of the rent into two portions ostensibly to prevent higher incidence of municipal tax for the tenants. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that since the Defendant No. 1 was in a superior bargaining position in relation to the members of the plaintiffs, the tenants did not have any option other than accepting the terms of the Defendant No. 1.

The plaintiffs alleged that the agreement provided for upward revision of rent on the increase of the electricity tariff. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that instead of an upward revision of the electricity tariff there was every likelihood of a downward revision. The Clauses in the agreement which required an upward revision of rent was claimed to be against public policy and contrary to the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Plaintiffs claimed protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 so far rent and its revision were concerned.

During the pendency of the suit the quantum of rent to be payable by a tenant at the air-conditioned market was referred to the Rent Controller under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Such quantum of rent was fixed by a formula adopted in such proceedings by the Rent Controller. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged by way of an appeal. Such appeal failed. The order passed on appeal was the subject matter of revisional applications pending before this Hon’ble Court.

G.A. 3049 of 2006

The plaintiffs sought amendments to the plaint as indicated, by way of G.A. No. 3049 of 2006.

Mr. Jaydip Kar, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the amendments sought for were necessitated due to events developing during the pendency of the suit. The proposed mendments did not change the nature and character of the suit in any manner whatsoever. The proposed amendments were necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings. The Courts ought to take a liberal view while considering an application for amendment.

In support of his contentions Mr. Kar relied on 2001 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 472 (Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan & Ors.), 2002 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases page 559