Judgment:
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
1. This application is at the instance of the tenant and is directed against the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Estate Officer in EO/186/0899 allowing the application for amendment of the eviction petition of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
2. The landlord/opposite party filed the said eviction case against the tenant/petitioner under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In that case, the tenant/petitioner appeared and filed a written objection. Evidence on behalf of both the sides had been completed. The case was at the stage of closing argument on behalf of the tenant. At that time, amendment of the application was preferred, which was allowed by the order impugned stating, inter alia, that if the prayer for amendment is allowed it would not change the nature and character of the proceedings. At the same time, it was observed by the Estate Officer that the tenant/petitioner was at liberty to raise objection as to force of notice under Section 4 of the said Act of 1971 at the time of final argument. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the tenant/petitioner has come up with this application.
3. Admittedly, in the eviction proceedings one fact was brought to record to the effect that the tenant/petitioner and the union of the opposite party used common bath and privy. Dispute arose over it. As a result one engineer commissioner gave report suggesting fresh construction of bath and privy within the tenancy of the tenant/petitioner for the tenant. This happened about six years back. Accordingly, the bath and privy was constructed later within the premises of the tenant/petitioner resulting in reduction of area to the extent of 194 square feet out of the total area of 1159 square feet under the possession of the tenant/petitioner. At the time of closing argument, the landlord sought for amendment which was allowed by the impugned order. Though such deduction of area occurred sometime back, the landlord did not seek for amendment of the application for eviction earlier but at the time of close of argument. However, the tenant/petitioner was given liberty to raise objection as to the force of the notice under Section 4 of the said Act of 1971. By this order, I am of the view that the tenant/petitioner was not prejudiced in any way because the quantum of amount to be payable for possession of the premises in question was changed subsequently. Anyway the nature of the proceedings was not changed at all by such amendment. However, opportunity was given to the tenant/petitioner on the point indicated above. There is no provision for filing a written objection against the order on the application for such amendment of the application and that is why no opportunity was given but the tenant/petitioner was given liberty to raise question of validity of the notice under Section 4 of the said Act. This being the position, I hold that there is no scope of interference at all with the order impugned.
4. Accordingly, I hold that this application cannot be allowed. It is, therefore, dismissed.
5. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
6. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.