IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury C.O. 27 of 2024 Sanil Chandran VERSUS Suroth Ghosh Mazumder & Anr.

For the petitioner: Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. Sounak Mandal, Adv. Mr. Abhirup Haldar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 1: Mr. Anirban Saha Ray, Adv.

Mr. Manik Lal Poddar, Adv.

Last Heard on: March 24, 2025 Judgment on: May 08, 2025 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

The petitioner before this Court is a defendant in a suit for eviction and is aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24-parganas in rejecting the petition of the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The case of the petitioner in the application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be summed up thus:

1. The defendant after coming to know of the fact that the plaintiff filed this suit against Nalini Ramachandran the mother of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 for her eviction from the suit property and the said suit was fixed for ex parte hearing against this petitioner after demise of the said Nalini Ramachandran the defendant/petitioner filed application for setting aside the order of ex parte hearing.

2. After hearing both sides learned Court was pleased to vacate the order of ex parte hearing and allowed the defendant/petitioner, to contest the suit.

3. After demise of Nalini Ramachandran the petitioner became the bona fide tenant in respect of the suit property by operation of law.

4. That since the demise of said Nalini Ramachandran there have been certain change of circumstances which are required to be put forward in the pleading of the defendant and the written statement filed earlier by the contesting defendant since deceased is required to be amended by incorporating such fact.

5. The petitioner/defendant has already filed herewith the additional written statement by incorporating such facts. The said additional written statement will not change the nature and character of the pleading of the original defendant in the suit.

6. The plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the additional written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner is accepted.

The application was contested by the plaintiff/opposite party by filing written objection. It was contended by the plaintiff/opposite party that the defendants became tenants in the suit property for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death of the Nalini Ramachandran. It is denied by the opposite party/plaintiff that since the demise of Nalini Ramachandran there has been certain change of circumstances. It is also contended that the substituted defendant steps into the shoes of the original defendant and therefore, has no right to file fresh written statement, and the additional written statement will change the nature and character of the original written statement. In the affidavit in reply the petitioner contended that the tenancy of his mother was given by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff for residential cum-commercial purposes for which the predecessor in interest of this defendant and thereafter on her demise this petitioner/defendant is also carrying their family business are uninterruptedly since inception of their tenancy till date and therefore the fact as stated in the additional written statement should be incorporated for the purpose of proper adjudication and fair disposal of the suit.

The learned Trial Court upon hearing the learned Advocates was pleased to dispose the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC by observing as follows:

“The case record is taken up for passing order regarding the petitioner U/O 8 R 9.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides on previous occasions.

Considered.

The Ld. Advocate for the petitioners/defendants submitted that they have filed one additional W.S. and prayed for its acceptance on the ground mentioned in the petition. It is stated in the petition that af