Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant had filed the suit on the basis of grounds under section 12 (1), (b) (c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that none of the grounds for ejectment were available to him. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff submitted an application for amendment on the basis of subsequent event viz., the defendant had purchased accommodation suitable for his residence at Morar. The application was opposed by the defendant and had been disallowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant had contended that the impugned order was arbitrary and illegal in as much as it runs contrary to the provisions of Order 6, rule 17 read with Order 7, rule 7 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant-non-applicant contended that the amendment was wholly unnecessary because the ground sought to be introduced by amendment was not available on the date of the institution of the suit, and it could not be allowed also in view of the preamble of section 12 (1) of the Act. Held : In the present case, the defendant has during the pendency of the suit purchased an accommodation by registered sale deed dated 23-1-1978, situated in Morar which is alleged to be suitable for his residence. Thus, the plaintiff wants to claim a decree also on the aforesaid ground. The ground is said to have originated from subsequent action of the plaintiff, which cannot be said to be within control of the plaintiff. There can be no valid objection to such amendment. After amendment, the plaint will be treated as one filed on grounds enacted by section 12 (1) of the Act and the suit will continue to be for ejectment though on one more ground, even if it is taken to be an introduction of a new cause of action. Court has power to permit the same. It is rather incumbent on the Court of Justice to take notice of subsequent events by virtue of Order 7, rule 7 CPC and to extend the use of Order 6, rule 17 CPC for the purpose. Ramniklal Pitamberdas Metha v. Indradaman Amratlal Singh. AIR 1964 SC 1676 , AIR 1948 Nag. 1, AIR 1975 SC 1409 , relied on. 1978 MPWN 79 , 1976 JLJ 1 , 1972 JLJ 759 , distinguished. Revision allowed.