JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J. - This revisional application has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas, in Ejectment Suit No.222 of 2018.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court below allowed an application for amendment on the ground that the said amendment was necessary for adjudication of the real questions in controversy between the parties and for the ends of justice.

3. The learned Advocate for the defendant/petitioner submits that the order impugned suffers from following irregularities:

(a) The amendment was allowed at a belated stage.

(b) The order impugned did not disclose any reason.

(c) The facts sought to be incorporated changed the nature and character of the suit property.

(d) The daughter did not have the authority to affirm the amendment application as the power of attorney was defective.

(e) Lastly, chance to file additional written statement was not given to the defendant.

4. Having gone through the schedule of amendment, this Court finds that an elaboration of the ground of reasonable requirement was sought to be incorporated by inserting paragraphs 1(a), 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiff claimed to be 88 years old and a patient suffering from hip joint disorder. After replacement of the hip joint, the doctor had advised the plaintiff to reside in the ground floor. Thus, the tenant was directed to vacate the ground floor so that the plaintiff could use the ground floor for his own use and occupation. It has been stated that the plaintiff did not have any other suitable accommodation. It also appears that there are other co-sharers to the property in question.

5. By way of an amendment, the plaintiff sought to introduce further grounds for requirement of the premises in question, namely, use by the children and their spouses when they come to visit the father and also for additional rooms so that the children can reside in the premises to look after the ailing father. The further contention that the defendant has suitable accommodation was also sought to be introduced.

6. Having considered the schedule of amendment, this Court finds that those are only elaborations as to why the plaintiff requires the suit premises for use and occupation of the plaintiff as also the family members of the plaintiff. Further elaboration as to the rooms, kitchen, privy, bathroom, etc. required has been made. This amendment does not amount to changing the nature and character of the suit property. It is also not introduction of a new case. It is an additional attack to the already existing ground of reasonable requirement.

7. The following decisions are referred to by this court.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 737, held that if the amendment enables the Court to pin-pointedly consider the real dispute between the parties and helps to decide the case more satisfactorily, the amendment ought to be allowed.

9. In the case of Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan reported in AIR 2001 SC 699 , it was held that amendment should generally be allowed, unless it was shown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and would cause prejudice to the opposite side, which could not be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right which had accrued to him with the lapse of time. Amendment may also be refused if the same is barred by time.

10. In the decision of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K.Modi