CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was a thika tenant under the opposite party in respect of the holding No. 118d, Ananda Palit Road, P. S. Entally, District 24-Parganas. The opposite party had filed an application before the Thika Tenancy Controller under S. 3 (1) (ii) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 inter alia alleging that he required the land and premises in the said holding for his own occupation. The petitioner contested the said case by filing a written objection. ( 2 ) THE learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah acting as the Thika Tenancy Controller, by his Order No. 98 dated 14th July, 1977, allowed the said application under S. 3 (1) (ii) of the opposite party subject to the payment of compensation for the structures standing on the land by the applicant to the Thika tenant. In case the compensation was not amicably settled, the parties were given liberty to apply for appointment of a valuation commissioner to assess the compensation amount. The present petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision preferred an appeal under S. 27 of the Calcutta thika Tenancyact, 1949. The petitioner before the said appellate authority filed application for amendment of his original written objection. He also applied for leave to adduce additional evidence about the age of the structures upon the holding and for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner. He made the said applications inter alia on the ground that he had erected permanent pucca structures on the disputed land "since long before the institution of the case". The present opposite party had opposed the said prayers of the present petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, as the appellate authority, dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner. By the same order the petitioner's prayers for amendment of his written objection and for adducing additional evidence were disallowed. Thereafter the petitioner obtained the present Rule. ( 3 ) MR. Sett, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the landlord opposite party in his application under S. 3 of the Act did not plead that he required the land comprised in the holding for building and rebuilding. Without such pleading the opposite party was allowed to lead evidence that he proposed to pull down the structures on the suit land and thereafter to construct a new building for accommodation of himself and the members of his family. Mr. Without such pleading the opposite party was allowed to lead evidence that he proposed to pull down the structures on the suit land and thereafter to construct a new building for accommodation of himself and the members of his family. Mr. Sett submitted that as no case of building and rebuilding having been pleaded the learned Controller an the appellate Authority acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction by allowing the opposite party to rely upon the evidence regarding building and rebuilding. Mr. Sett secondly submitted that under S. 3 (1) (ii) as amended by the Calcutta thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 building and rebuilding is no longer a ground for ejectment of a thika tenant. Therefore, the order of eviction made in the instant case is without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) I am unable to accept any of the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the first place, the opposite party in his application did not plead that he reasonably required the land for his own occupation without giving the details of the manner in which he proposed to satisfy his requirement for his own occupation. The Thika Tenancy Controller believed the evidence on the said point given on the side of the opposite party and recorded that there was nothing in the evidence of the opposite party to show that the applicant did not acquire the premises in dispute for a reasonably suitable accommodation for his own use and occupation. The learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, in his judgment also believed the said case of the opposite party. He further found that the other accommodation available to the applicant in the city and also in the suburbs was not sufficient for the applicant. He did not object when the opposite party had adduced the above evidence. He had full opportunity to contest and he did not suffer any prejudice. Therefore, the petitioner in his application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot for the first time raise an objection against the finding of fact concurrently made by the authorities on the said question of reasonable requirement. Before its amendment by Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, S. 3 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was inter alia, in the following terms:"3. Before its amendment by Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, S. 3 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was inter alia, in the following terms:"3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, a thika tenant shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be liable to ejectment from his holding on one or more of the following grounds and not otherwise, namely: - (i)* * (ii)* * (iii)* * (iv) except during any period limited by registered lease under which a thika tenant may hold the land comprised in the holding, on the ground that the land is required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the purpose of building on the land or otherwise developing the land by discontinuing letting to thika tenant. "thus the unamended law contemplated three kinds of requirements, namely (a) for own occupation by the landlord, (b) for the purpose of building of the land, and (c) or otherwise developing the land by discontinuing letting to thika tenants. ( 5 ) B. N. Banerjee, J. in (1) Madan Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Deb reported in 62 Calwn 654, with reference to the grounds of ejectment in S. 3 (iv) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act held that the grounds specified in S. 3 (iv) of the Act are distinct and separate. But that does not mean that where a landlord requires the land for his own occupation the manner of his occupation may not be by building on the land his own house either for residential or business purpose. There is nothing in S. 3 (iv) to indicate that if the landlord required the land for his own occupation he must not build on the land when he gets possession of it but would merely occupy the same with the structure as may be standing thereon or as bare land without in any way making further construction. ( 6 ) MR. ( 6 ) MR. Sett, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the Statements of Objects and Reasons for the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Bill, 1969 to the effect that further amendment of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act was made with the object of properly safe-guarding the legitimate interests of thika tenants and for further restricting the grounds on which a thika tenant could be ejected and that a thika tenant using the land for residential purpose shall be given the right of erect pucca structures and for property discharging the obligations of the thika tenants towards his bharatiyas. ( 7 ) SECTION 3 (1) (ii) is now confined to a case where land is required by the landlord for his own occupation. Under the amended law a landlord's requirements for the purpose of building on the land for again letting out or his requirements for otherwise developing the land would be no longer grounds for ejectment of a thika tenant. But S. 3 (1) (ii) has retained the expression "the land is required by the landlord for his own occupation" which also appeared in previous clause (iv) of the unamended S. 3. Thus, this ground has remained unchanged. Therefore, the above reasoning given by B. N. Banerjee, J. in the case of Madan Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Deb (supra), In my view, shall be applied with equal force for interpreting the expression "is required by the landlord for his own occupation" appearing in new amended S. 3 (1) (ii ). Section 3 (1) (ii) does not either expressly or by necessary implication provide that the landlord who otherwise establishes that he reasonably requires the land and that his existing accommodation is not sufficient for him and his family, will not be allowed to build on the land comprised in the holding for his own use and occupation. Accordingly, I reject the narrow construction put by Mr. Sett upon the said Clause (ii ). Such interpretation would be also opposed to all reasons and in fact the legislature did not intend that a landlord who otherwise establishes his reasonable requirement shall be precluded from erecting his own building after evicting the thika tenant and must be compelled to live in the structure from which the thika tenant is evicted on payment of compensation under S. 6 of the Act. In the result, the first submission made by the petitioner fails. ( 8 ) IN my view, the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference with the order of the lower appellate authority refusing to allow the prayers of the petitioner for amendment of his written objection and for reception of additional evidence to establish that he had pucca structure on the suit land. In the first place, the learned Additional District Judge, exercising his powers under S. 27 of the Act has given reasons why he was not inclined to allow the said prayers made on behalf of the petitioner. According to the learned Additional District Judge such amendment would be highly prejudicial to the interest of the landlord respondent. Secondly, although in paragraph 15 of the application under S. 3 it was averred that the opposite party had no pucca structure upon the disputed holding the thika tenant in his written objection did not deny the said averment. The lower appellate court as a fact also referred to the submission made on behalf of the applicant respondent that the pucca structures now on the disputed land were unauthorized and raised after the institution of the case. Therefore, the thika tenant was not entitled to get any protection undr S. 3 (4) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. The learned Additional District Judge made the following finding:". . . . I am not hold that the tenant raised, those pucca structures, now standing on the disputed premises, in an unauthorized manner and without the requisite sanction after the institution of this case. . . . . " ( 9 ) IN this connection the learned Additional District Judge referred to the decision of P. K. Banerjee, J. in Luxmi Moni Dasi v. J. K. Sarkar, 1975 (2) CLJ 166 . P. K. Banerjee, J. in Lakhmimoni Dasi and Anr. v. Jiban Krishna Srkar's case (supra) held that protection against eviction given to a tenant who has erected or acquired a pucca structure on the land by s. 3 (4) cannot be availed of by a tenant where the structure was erected unauthorizedly without the consent of the landlord or the permission of the Controller under S. 10a of the Act. In the said case pucca structure was found to have been erected unauthorisedly and therefore, the thika tenant was not granted the protection under S. 3 (4) of the Act. It is settled law now that before the amendment of the Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (by Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969) a thika tenant had no right to erect permanent or pucca structure without the permission of the landlord. Section 10a which was inserted by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 with perspective effect gives right to a thika tenant to erect pucca structure for residential purpose with the previous permission of the Controller. Except in cases covered by S. 10a a thika tenant still continues to have no power to erect pucca structures on the land comprised in his holding without the consent in writing. Section 10a did not provide either expressly or by necessary implication the pucca structures, if any built by a thika tenant before the commencement of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 shall become authorized or that the landlord whootherwise fulfills anyone or more of the grounds of ejectment specified in S. 3 of the Act shall be precluded from evicting such a thika tenant who had erected unauthorized structures. Sub-section (4) of S. 3 clearly refers to those pucca structures which have been erected by a thika tenant with the previous permission of the Thika Tenancy Controller for residential purpose or pucca structure erected with the landlord's consent. Therefore, a thika tenant who has unauthorisedly erected structure either before or after the commencement of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 cannot claim protection against eviction under sub-s. (4) of S. 3. In the result, the last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must also be rejected. I accordingly discharge this Rule without any order as to costs. Rule discharged. .