1. This revision is directed against the order of allowing the amendment filed by non-petitioners 2 and 3, i.e. the plaintiffs. In the eviction suit under the amendment, they have incorporated a further ground of the denial of their title by the petitioner-tenant. The title of the plaintiffs was denied by the petitioner in his written statement.

2. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the authority of Sureshchandra v. Gopichand (1984 MPWN 470) to contend that the ground of eviction ought to exist at the time of filing of the suit as section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been so worded. He contends that the ground which did not exist at the time of filing of the suit cannot be taken by the plaintiffs subsequently during the pendency of the suit.

3. The petitioner's counsel in support of his contention has placed implicit reliance on Sureshchandra (supra). The authority has proceeded on the provisions of section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also not a by-partite order. Thereafter, the Apex Court in Majoti Subbarao v. P.V.K Krishnarao (AIR 1989 SC 2187) = also reported in short Note