IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, minimizing litigation, and ensuring justice.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned XIII Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred this instant application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. By passing the impugned order learned Trial Court allowed the application for amendment filed by this petitioner to the extent so that he can make prayer for recovery of possession of 165 square feet but the other contentions made in that application was rejected by the Court.

3. Affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.5 and affidavit in reply there to filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with the record.

4. The run up of facts in brief leading to the instant petition has to be minuted. The present petitioner as a plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants with a prayer for decree of declaration that he is a monthly tenant in respect of case property and he is entitled to protection against the eviction save and except under due process of law as well as decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from disturbing him in respect of the enjoyment of the suit room. It is stated by the plaintiff that he was monthly tenant in respect of two tenancies being one in respect of shop room and another in respect of one godown and out of the said two tenancies the plaintiff surrendered one tenancy in respect of godown but retains other tenancy being shop room as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as a monthly tenant at the rate of rent of Rs. 100 per month payable according to English calendar month. It is stated by the plaintiff that out of two landlords one namely Prabhat Kumar Roy died leaving behind his wife, two daughters and one son who are all arrayed as opposite parties no(s). 1 to 4 in this case. It is stated by the plaintiff/petitioner that he was not aware about the transfer of the entire premises to the opposite party No. 5 (herein) being a promoter for making development and construction over the premises No. 121, Kolkata 13 on demolishing the existing building.

5. It is stated by the plaintiff/petitioner that the said opposite party No. 5 asked him to vacate the said case property i.e. shop room immediately and failing which he will be facing dire consequence. Finding no other alternative the plaintiff knocked the door of the Court by instituting the suit against the defendants with a prayer for temporary injunction. After getting notice the defendants entered their appearance in the suit and after hearing the said injunction application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court. Against the said refusal of granting ad interim order of injunction the plaintiff preferred an appeal before this Court and on hearing the said appeal this Court has been pleased to direct the opposite party No. 5 to keep a shop room measuring 165 square feet reserved subject to the result of the suit.

6. It is the claim of the defendant/opposite party No. 5 that the plaintiff surrendered both the tenancies i.e. the godown and shop room in favour of the land lords by surrender letters dated 02.04.1985 and 15.01.2003 but in respect of those letters this petitioner/plaintiff denied and disputed the same and it is claimed that the tenancies of the shop room was never been surrendered by him and he is still a tenant in respect of the said shop room. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 09.03.2015 he was surprised to find that the lock putting by him on the said premises has been allegedly removed by someone and some other lock has been placed thereupon at the main entrance gate of the shop room. Since there has been a change of ownership and it was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff and since the subsequent events regarding removing of the lock of the plaintiff from his shop room and putting a new lock therein during the pendency of the suit this plaintiff/petitioner was n