SEN Actg., C.J.—This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal vs. Padam Kumar Kothari(l) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath vs. Pana Devi (2) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, cannot be allowed under section 153 or Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit.

2. The parties stand in the relationship of landlord and tenant. On 13-7-1972, the plaintiff brought the suit for eviction of the defendant under section 13 (l)(h) of the Act i.e. on the ground of his penonal necessity alleging that he requires the suit premises, which is a shop, reasonably and bona fide for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document