JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Title (E) Suit No.42 of 2009, are aggrieved of a part of order dated 17.07.2014 by which the following amendments in the plaint has been declined: “1. That, in 2nd line of para 13(a) of the plaint the word “which has been fully described in schedule B of the plaint” be added, and in 3rd line of para 13(a) the word “vacated” be substituted by word “vacate” and in 6th line of the same para before the word “given” the word “be” be added. 2. That, after para 13(a) of the plaint a new para 13(aa) added with following statement. (aa) After adjudication it be declare that the plaintiffs have got valid right title, interest or possession of the suit. (3) That, in 4th line of para 4 of the plaint the word “on certain condition it was arrived between the father of the plaintiff or defendant” be deleted and it place the word “the possession of the defendant over the suit premises is permissive.” 2. Title (E) Suit No.42 of 2009 was instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent and for the personal necessity of the plaintiffs’ sons. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds; one of the plea taken by the defendant is that the suit property has been purchased by him from father of the plaintiff no.1. In the pending suit now an application for amendment has been filed by the plaintiffs for incorporating a prayer for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the stand taken by the defendant laying a claim over the suit property it became necessary for the plaintiffs to seek a declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property. 4. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that if amendment in the pleadings is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, all amendments in the pleadings can be permitted on such terms as the court may deem just and proper. However, after Order VI Rule 17 CPC was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 and a proviso was inserted therein, further limitation has been put on powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. However, after Order VI Rule 17 CPC was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 and a proviso was inserted therein, further limitation has been put on powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. It provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced and by now it is well-settled that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is mandatory. In “Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India” reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 , scope of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the following words : 26. ........“The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision”. 5. In a suit for eviction which has been filed on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs and default in payment of rent, all that the plaintiffs are required to prove is personal necessity and default in payment of rent by the defendant. In law, it is not necessary that a suit for eviction under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 shall be filed only by the one who is the owner of the property. Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 defines landlord to include the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. 6. It is, thus, apparent that title of the plaintiff in an eviction suit filed under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 is not an issue which requires adjudication by the Court. 6. It is, thus, apparent that title of the plaintiff in an eviction suit filed under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 is not an issue which requires adjudication by the Court. The expression “real question in controversy between the parties” in Rule 17 CPC must be examined in the context of initial pleadings of the parties and it is only such amendment which shall have a co-relation to the initial pleadings of the parties and which is necessary for adjudicating the real question in controversy that can be permitted. In “Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan” reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 it has been observed that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 7. May be the application for amendment was filed by the plaintiffs at the initial stage of the trial, the mandate in law is that only such amendments which are necessary for resolving the real controversy involved in the suit that can be permitted. The trial Judge in its order dated 17.07.2014 has taken note of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, besides the stand taken by the defendant that the proposed amendment is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.