Jyotirmoyee Nag, J.
1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 122 dated 4-7-1978 passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 65 of 1975. The said Title Suit was filed for eviction by the petitioner on 28-2-1975 praying for eviction of the opposite party in respect of two rooms including a joint privy of premises No. 88, Debendra Ganguly Road, P. S. Shibpur, District Howrah. That suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and the same ground was made out in the notice to quit given by the petitioner on 3-12-1974. The petitioner is the landlord, purchaser from the previous landlord and accordingly though he had wanted the premises for his own use and occupation but on account of the bar under Section 13 (3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act that ground was not stated in the notice nor was the suit filed on that ground. In February 1978 however, the three years' period having expired the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P. C. for amendment of the plaint and for adding the ground 'reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation'. The matter was contested by the opposite party tenant who filed the written objection contending, inter alia, that the petitioner's aforesaid application was mala fide, frivolous and that there was no reasonable requirement as alleged by the petitioner. The learned Munsif by his impugned order rejected the petitioner's aforesaid application for amendment of the plaint and the reasons given far so rejecting the application are as follows: that originally the plaintiff was not entitled to incorporate the said ground in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit on account of the bar under Section 13 (3A) as the plaintiff, petitioner had purchased the property from the previous landlord on 30-8-1974 and the suit was filed on 28-2-75. Therefore, the plaintiff could file a suit on the ground of reasonable requirement only after 13-8-77. So, according to the learned Munsif, the cause of action arose on 30-8-77 and if the amendment is allowed the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen in the suit prior to 28-2-1975. That could not be. Although the decision reported in : AIR1977Cal49 (Jiteudra Natb Das v. Kalyan Kumar Banerjee) was cited before the learned Munsif, he however, was of the view that the facts of that decision had no application to the facts of the present case and accordingly that decision would not be binding on him in the facts and circumstances of the present case and on these grounds the learned Munsif rejected the application for amendment
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited a case reported in : 2SCR774 (B. Banerjee v. Sm. Anita Pan.) The relevant paras are at 28 and 29. It has been held in that case that as far as possible courts must avoid multiplicity of litigations. 'Any interpretation of a statute which will obviate purposeless proliferation of litigation, without whittling down the effectiveness of the protection for the parties sought to be held by the legislation, should be preferred to any literal, pedantic, legalistic or technically correct alternative'. Therefore, to give effect to the amendment of the new Clauses 13 (f)/13 (ff) the Supreme Court directed the plaintiffs to file fresh pleadings setting out the grounds under Clauses (f) and/or (ff) of Sub-section (1) if they so wish. Though the facts of that case are different from the present one, inasmuch as in that case, the suit was brought under the old Clauses (f) and (ff) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for reasonable requirement of the landlord the new Clauses (f) and (ff) are somowhat different from the previous Clauses (f) & (ff), but in substance they are for reasonable requirement. But in this case that ground was not made out in the original plaint in thepresent case not because there was no reasonable requirement but because of the bar as I have already stated under Section 13 (3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Itis not necessary for the plaintiff to make out all the grounds in the notice, nor do the grounds constitute the cause of action as wrongly held by the learned Munsif. The cause of action in the suit arises after the notice is given determining the tenancy and, therefore, the nature of the suit which was a suit for ejectment would not be changed by adding a new ground. Accordingly. I set aside the order passed by the learned Munsif and direct the learned Munsif to allow the opposite party (tenant) an opportunity to give in additional written statement after accepting the amendment as prayed for by the planitiff-petitioner.
3. The Role is made absolute.
4. There will be no order as to costs.
5. Let the records go down immediately.