JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises from a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, filed inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement. The defendant in the said suit has challenged an order of amendment of the plaint taken out by the substituted and transposed plaintiffs.

2. The eviction suit was initially filed by one Smt. Surma Devi Pasari on the ground of personal requirement of the plaintiff as well as her daughter-in–law, the original proforma defendant Savitri Devi Pasari as well as their family.

3. Subsequently, both the original plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 expired during pendency of the suit.

4. Savitri Devi Pasari, prior to her demise, had executed a Will in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. The executor of the said Will obtained probate of the said will dated October 26, 2009 on October 8, 2013. The executor, thereafter, executed a registered deed of assignment in favour of the legatees, that is, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

5. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 took out an application for being substituted in place of proforma defendant No. 2 and sought transposition to the category of plaintiffs in the suit, since the suit property was bequeathed to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

6. Such application was initially captioned to be under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon the same being dismissed, such order was challenged and ultimately the matter went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, vide order dated February 4, 2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1005 of 2020, allowed opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to be substituted within the purview of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code and, by the same order, directed transposition of the said opposite parties as plaintiffs in the suit. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High court for fresh consideration and directed the eviction suit itself to be decided expeditiously, preferably within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of the said order before the court concerned.

7. Consequent to the transposition, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 took out an application for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed on consent. In Paragraph 6 of the amended plait, it was specifically pleaded that the said premises were initially reasonably required by Savitry Devi Pasari for her own occupation as well as for the occupation of her family and presently by the plaintiffs (opposite party Nos. 1 to 3) and their respective families, having no reasonable suitable accommodation at Calcutta.

8. Subsequently, the plaintiffs/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 took out a second amendment application seeking to introduce the exact nature of the requirement of the said opposite parties and their families in elaborate details.

9. The defendants contested such application by filing a written objection to the amendment application.

10. Vide impugned order dated March 31, 2021, the Trial Judge allowed the second amendment application, against which the present revision has been preferred by the first defendant.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, by the second amendment, the entire cause of action was sought to be substituted by a new cause of action which, according to counsel, is not permissible in law. In this context, counsel places reliance on Smt. Phool Rani and Ors. Vs. Sh. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia reported at (1973) 1 SCC 688. In the said case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the requirement pleaded in the ejectment application on which the plaintiff had founded his right to relief in his requirement would assume a complexion wholly beyond the compass of the original cause of action in the event the member of the family were subsequently permitted to amend the plaint and introduce their own personal requirement in the pleadings. Such a personal cause as the original cause of action, it