An amendment of plaint in a suit for eviction, by addition of a new ground of reasonable requirement, is permissible if the suit had been filed after the expiry of the embargo period under Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

The undisputed facts are that the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property on 3rd June, 1994 and preferred a suit for eviction and recovery of possession with mesne profit against the appellant/defendant on 13th December, 1994. The said suit was preferred primarily on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement. The said suit was ultimately dismissed by a judgment dated 30th November, 2000 and against the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate court being Title Appeal No.283 of 2007. The said Title Appeal was allowed on contest and the judgment dated 30th November, 2000 was set aside and the suit was sent back on remand with a direction to consider the plaintiffs application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) and to deliver fresh judgment. The records were received by the Trial Court on 30th August, 2004 and the amendment application was allowed by an order dated 1st March, 2005. Thereafter, the said suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 21st August, 2007. The plaintiff challenged the said judgment through an appeal being Title Appeal No. 283 of 2007 and the same was allowed by a judgment dated 31st May, 2013 against which the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

2. Dealing with the ground of default, the Learned Trial Court was of the view that as the defendant had deposited the quantified arrears of rent on the basis of an order under Section 17(2) of the said Act of 1956 and as the defendant had also deposited rent month by month till March, 2007, the defendant was entitled to get protection against delivery of possession.

3. Dealing with the ground of reasonable requirement, the Learned Trial Court was of the view that as the plaintiff purchased the suit property on 3rd June, 1994 and filed the suit on 13th December, 1994 incorporating a ground of reasonable requirement, the said suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1956) and that the ground of reasonable requirement cannot also be taken by a subsequent amendment of the plaint after 3 years of the purchase of the property.

4. Pertaining to the said ground of default, the 1st Appellate Court was, however, of the view that the defendant had not continued to make payment of rent for the current months, as directed by the Learned Trial Court on 18th March, 1996 and that there was also no documentary evidence regarding the payment of rent for the months of February, 2005, October, 2005 and November, 2005 and thus, in the absence of any specific stipulation or agreement of making of payment belatedly, the deposit of rent was invalid.

5. As regards the ground of reasonable requirement, the 1st Appellate Court was of the view that as the amendment of the plaint was made during the pendency of the suit and after the expiry of the embargo period, the Learned Trial Court erred in law in observing that the suit is not maintainable.

6. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the ground of default has not been properly considered by 1st Appellate Court inasmuch as the appellant herein deposited the arrear rent in terms of the order passed in the application under Section 17(2) of the said Act of 1956 and had also deposited the rent month by month till March, 2007 and that as such, the petitioner was entitled to get protection against delivery of possession in terms of the provisions of Section 17(4) of the said Act of 1956.

7. Mr. Basu further submits that upon remand, the records of the proceedings were received by the learned Trial Court on 30th August, 2004 and upon such re-admission of the suit after remand, the appellant has made payment of rent, in accordance with law before the Rent Controller in consonance with Section 21 readwith Section 22 of the said Act of 19