Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1) This first appeal is at the instance of a tenant-defendant in a suit for eviction decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement and is preferred against a judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 1990 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No.104 of 1990 thereby passing a decree for eviction. (2) Being dissatisfied, the tenant-defendant has come up with the present first appeal. The suit was filed by one Sachindra Nath Paul, since deceased, for eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement. The suit property is a garage. According to the plaintiff, he was aged about 80 years and had no son but two married daughters. For the purpose of looking after the plaintiff and his wife, he brought the elder daughter with her family in his house. The elder daughter had a motorcar but due to want of an additional garage in his house, she had been keeping the car in a vacant open place by the side of the house. According to the plaintiff, he was a heart-patient and was suffering from different other ailments and the doctors were required to be called off and on for his examination and treatment at anytime during 24 hours and for that reason, the elder daughter had been staying in the said premises along with her husband and children. The plaintiff, therefore, reasonably required the suit garage for the purpose of keeping motorcar of the elder daughter. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the specific defence of the appellant was that the said married daughter had her husbands own house in Shaymbazar and thus, the requirement pleaded in the plaint was a camouflage one. (3) The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that for requirement of the elder daughter of the plaintiff, the garage in occupation of the tenant was necessary as the car is required to be kept there for the emergent need of the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement. Being dissatisfied, the defendant-appellant has come up with the present first appeal. The suit was, therefore, decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement. Being dissatisfied, the defendant-appellant has come up with the present first appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, both the original plaintiff and his wife died and as such, on the death of the plaintiff and his wife, his two married daughters have been substituted as the respondents. (4) At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Ghoshal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that on the death of the plaintiff and his widow, the requirement of the elder daughter of the plaintiff for keeping the car has come to an end, inasmuch as, she can now go back to her husbands house and there is no necessity of looking after her father. Mr. Ghoshal contends that the said daughter having already become the owner of the property, in order to get a decree for eviction on the ground of her own requirement for keeping the car, her other properties and the property belonging to her husband should also be taken into account for the purpose of ascertaining whether the said daughter has any other place to keep the car. By drawing our attention to the bluebook of the car concerned exhibited in the Court below, Mr. Ghoshal pointed out that the address of the said daughter is appearing as Balaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata-4 and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence as to whether in the said Balaram Ghosh house there is any garage, this Court cannot affirm the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in the changed circumstances. (5) Mr. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Ghoshal and has contended that on the death of the original plaintiff, the right to sue devolved upon his clients. According to Mr. Chatterjee, on the basis of the original requirement as pleaded in the plaint, his clients are entitled to get the benefit of the decree. (6) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that although the requirement as pleaded in the original plaint does no longer exist, the fact remains that the elder daughter of the plaintiff has now become a co-owner of the property along with her sister. (6) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that although the requirement as pleaded in the original plaint does no longer exist, the fact remains that the elder daughter of the plaintiff has now become a co-owner of the property along with her sister. At the relevant point of time, the other accommodations available to her for keeping the car were immaterial because she was required to stay in the same house with her father for the purpose of looking after him and the car was required to be kept in the same house for emergent need during the entire 24 hours a day, but after the death of her both the parents that necessity is no longer subsisting unless it is established from the evidence that still she is staying in the said property and not in the house of her husband. (7) In our view, the appeal being one arising out of a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and the original suit having been filed in the year 1990, we should take into consideration the subsequent events that have occurred during the pendency of this appeal. In such circumstances, we give an opportunity to the substituted plaintiffs to amend their plaint incorporating the subsequent events justifying the requirement of the garage for keeping the car of the elder daughter of the original plaintiff and for giving an opportunity to prove that even in the changed circumstances she required the garage and that she has no other reasonably suitable garage elsewhere. (8) We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and remand the matter back to the learned Trial Court for giving the respondents an opportunity to amend the plaint by incorporating the subsequent events in support of requirement of the garage in question. If such application for amendment of the plaint is filed, the learned Trial Court shall allow such application and will give an opportunity to the appellant to file additional written statement and, thereafter, permit the parties to lead evidence on the subsequent events and will decide the suit on the basis of such evidence. It is needless to mention that we have affirmed the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the question of service of and legality of the notice of eviction. It is needless to mention that we have affirmed the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the question of service of and legality of the notice of eviction. (9) The appeal is, thus, disposed of. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge are set aside and we remand the matter back to the learned Trial Judge for retrial as stated above. (10) Since the proceedings are pending for the last 19 years, we direct the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the suit positively within six months from the receipt of the records from this Court. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.