Goraldas Parmanand. The High Court declined to permit the amendment. In doing so, it seems to me that the High Court erred. It was an essential part of the appellants' defence from the outset that the portion let out to Goraldas Permanand constituted suitable alternative accommodation, and therefore they should not be ejected. It is immaterial that the amendment was sought more than three years after possession of the portion had passed to the respondent. The High Court was bound to take the fact into consideration because, as is well settled now, in a proceeding for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement under a statute controlling the eviction of tenants, unless the statute prescribes to the contrary the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding is finally disposed of either in appeal or revision, by the relevant authority. That position, to my mind, is indisputable. The High Court should have allowed the amendment. The High Court, alternatively observed that the respondent wanted to accommodate his shop in the front portion of the building and therefore, of necessity, he would require the portion occupied by the appellants. That conclusion is based on the findings rendered by the courts below, which findings the High Court respected as findings of fact. But the High Court failed to note that both the courts below had proceeded on the assumption that the adjoining portion occupied by Goraldas Parmanand was not immediately available on account of litigation. It is for that reason that permitting the amendment sought by the appellants became relevant and, indeed, imperative. If the respondent has obtained possession of that portion, and that does not seem to be disputed, it becomes a serious question for decision whether the respondent needs the front portion of the building for his medicine shop and, if so, according to dimensions proposed by him. In the consideration of that question the element of the respondent's need for the rear portion of the building for his personal residence must be ignored. That need was never pleaded in the plaint and, as will be seen from s. 12(1)(e) of the Act, several considerations need to be satisfied before the need can be held proved. This aspect of the matter was apparently not brought to the notice of the High Court and therefore it fell into the error of taking this element into account.
