There appears to be a case decided by Patna High Court similar to the facts of your case.
In the case of Annapurna Agrawal v. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, AIR 1984 Pat 215, Patna High Court held that:
“It is well settled that even if new facts are introduced but if those facts do not change the character of the suit, the amendment should be allowed. The test is whether new assertion, a new cause of action and foreign to the scope of the suit, changes the entire complexion of the suit. If it does, then the amendment cannot be allowed.”
It was further held:
“…such amendments on such grounds (of course being available under the Act) being based on subsequent event should be allowed in a suit for eviction against the tenant just to shorten the litigation, to preserve the rights of both the parties and to subserve the ends of justice. Reference may be made to the case of Sachchidanand v. Heeranand, 1983 BBCJ (HC) 168 : (AIR 1983 Pat 276).”
The High Court also held that: “The existence of one or more of the grounds mentioned in the Act for eviction of the tenant does not constitute a necessary part of the cause of action in a suit for eviction of the tenant. A cause of action in a suit under the Act for eviction of the tenant is certainly an accrual of a disability against the tenant pertaining to the grounds mentioned for eviction due to his conduct or laches, thus disentitling the tenant from the protection against his eviction. There is nothing which debars a Court from permitting, the introduction of a cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the suit by way of amendment so long as the defendant has an opportunity of meeting the new case by amendment of his written statement and by leading evidence in support of his defence, if any. The Act forbids the Court from passing a decree or order of eviction which is dehors the Act. The existence of one or more of the grounds for eviction mentioned in the Act is a sine qua non to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.”
In the above case, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint for inserting the following additional paragraph:
“That it is submitted that the defendants are defaulter in the eye of law and thus liable to be evicted for not having paid any amount towards the rent of the suit premises even after the filing of the suit up to the month of April, 1983.”
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
