2025:JHHC:22384 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 677 of 2025 Amrik Singh, S/o Late Kartar Singh, R/o Kartar Niwas, near Gurudwara, Gouri Shankar Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur -831006 ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Binita Singh, W/o Late Rajendra Singh 2. Satyendra Singh, S/o Late Shyam Bahadur Singh Both residents of M.E. School Road, Jugsalai P.O. & P.S.- Jugsalai & District-Singhbhum East … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 07.08.2025. Defendant/ Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Eviction Suit No.08 of 2014 corresponding to Original Title Suit No.403 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the petition for amendment in the written statement, has been rejected. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit in 2014 for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Least, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2000. The original written statement was filed on 03.12.2014, issues were framed and the case was at the stage of defence evidence when the petition for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC was pressed into motion on 30.08.2023 for the following amendment: - (a) After concluding the portion of the existing paragraph 27 of the written statement, a fresh paragraph numbered as 27 (a) may kindly be inserted with following words and figures: - “27(a)- That the defendant has subsequently come to learn that the three shops, situated adjacent north to the present suit shop and in occupation of Raj Kumar Barwalia, have been vacated by the said tenant pursuant to a decree passed in Eviction Suit No.47 of 2010 and delivery of possession of the aforesaid three shops were effected vide Execution Case No.16 of 2016 and the plaintiffs are in possession of the aforesaid three shop rooms” 3. The amendment petition has been rejected on the ground that proposed amendment was a subsequent event arising after filing of the present suit. Even after 2025:JHHC:22384 vacation of the pre-vacated shop, defendant cannot take the plaintiff to choose any particular shop. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Rohan Mazumdar on behalf of the petitioner that there is a major change in circumstance which necessitated the filing of the amendment petition. At the time of filing of the plaint, the petitioner had specifically pleaded that they needed the particular shop of the petitioner as part of personal necessity for opening beauty parlor by their daughters. However, now the three shops have been delivered consequent upon decree of eviction in separate cases. Therefore, the plaintiff has available alternative shops for running the said beauty parlor therefore, this part needs to be incorporated in the written statement. Reliance is placed on Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others, 2024 SCC OnLineSC 2615 para 11, wherein in order to bring on record the subsequent development under Order VI Rule 17, was allowed. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff/OP, that the suit for eviction is pending since 2014 and the amendment at this stage will procrastinate the trial. It is also submitted that in any case, the tenant cannot dictate the plaintiff-land owner which shop will cater to the personal necessity of the landlord. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the proposed amendment is not on pleading of fact, rather it seeks to introduce evidence that there were three other shops available to the plaintiff. Pleadings are to be of fact and not of evidence. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This civil misc. petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -