As per case facts, an eviction suit was filed by a landlord seeking possession based on bonafide need for himself and his family, among other grounds. The Trial Court dismissed ... the suit, finding no bonafide need. During the appeal, the landlord passed away, and his legal heirs were impleaded. The legal heirs then sought to amend the plaint to include their specific bonafide needs as subsequent events, which was allowed by the Appellate Bench. The tenants challenged this in the High Court. The question arose as to whether a court can examine the merits of a case when considering an application to amend the plaint, and if an amendment sought by legal heirs for bonafide need can be refused if the original landlord's need has ceased. Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that courts should not delve into the merits when deciding on a plaint amendment. It held that the High Court erred by misinterpreting the original pleadings regarding family needs and overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 227 by reviewing the merits. The Supreme Court emphasized that subsequent events can be incorporated through amendment, especially when the original plaint already included family members' needs. It upheld the Appellate Bench's decision, stating that granting leave to amend and remanding the issue was appropriate, causing no prejudice to the tenants.