Madras High Court
Jalaluddin vs Mohammed Ismail, S/O. Sikkandar ... on 31 March, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1986)1MLJ477
ORDER T.N. Singaravelu, J.
1. The tenant (2nd respondent in the eviction petition) is the revision petitioner herein. The 1st respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant/revision petitioner contended that he is not a tenant, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them, that he is the owner of the land and that he has put up the superstructure at his own cost. Later, the landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking amendment of the description of property. In the petition for eviction, he had described the subject-matter as a thatched house, and he prayed for an amendment that the subject-matter is a tiled roof house. The 2nd respondent (tenant) objected to this amendment, but the Rent Controller overruled the objection and ordered amendment. Aggrieved by this, he has come forward with this revision petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ tenant argued that Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to Rent Control proceedings and, therefore, the order allowing the amendment should be set aside. Learned Counsel also relied upon a ruling reported in Munisami Naidu v. Kasim Khan for the proposition that the Code of Civil Procedure as such will not be applicable to the Rent Control proceedings and that therefore Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked.
3. I have perused the said decision rendered by a learned single Judge. In that case, the landlord had filed the petition for eviction on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, use of the premises for a different purpose and requirement for his own occupation. The first two grounds of eviction were found against, and on the third ground of 'personal occupation', the learned Counsel argued that though the requirement, was for 'personal occupation', the evidence adduced was to the effect that it was required for 'additional accommodation'. Consequently, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The landlord went up on appeal, and, during the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application for amendment of the main petition seeking to give the correct provision of law, namely Section 10(3)(c) instead of 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and also sought to add a new paragraph in his petition for eviction. The Appellate Authority allowed the amendment and it was - against that order, the revision was filed, wherein Ramanujam, J. found that Order 9, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable since all the provisions ' of the Code of Civil Procedure do not ipso facto apply to the Rent Control proceedings. The learned Judge found that the landlord should have filed the application for amendment before the Rent Controller instead of before1 the Appellate Authority. Since the amendment was sought for only at the appellate stage, the learned Judge felt that 'the Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing the amendment at the appellate stage, more or less permitting the respondent to seek a review of the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller'. The learned Judge found that an amendment at the appellate stage clearly amounted to seeking a review of the order already made by the Rent Controller and, therefore, held that the amendment was not a mere rectification of a mistake due to inadvertance, and consequently allowed the revision.
4. The facts of the case before us are entirely different. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed the petition even before the Rent Controller and the amendment sought for is only with reference to the description of property i.e. whether it is a tiled building or it is a thatched roof building. The amendment is only with reference to the description of the pattern of the superstructure and it has not gone farther. Learned Counsel for the landlord argued that a wrong description was given and the mistake was one committed by inadvertance and therefore he might be permitted to amend the description of property with reference to the nature of the construction. Reliance was also placed on a ruling reported in Chinna Raju Naidu v. Bavani Bai (1981) 2 M.L.J. 354 wherein a learned single Judge of this court has affirmed the order of amendment passed by the Rent Controller with reference to the door number of the premises. The learned Judge held that an order in an interlocutory application permitting the landlord to correct the door number of the premises in question is only procedural in character and that it does not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. Similarly, in the present case before us, the rights and liabilities of the parties are not affected by the mere amendment in respect of the description of the superstructure. In fact, it is strenuously contended on behalf of the tenant-revision petitioner, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant sets up title in himself both to the superstructure as well as to the site. Therefore, the main dispute between the parties is intact and the description of the superstructure is not very material having regard to the basic dispute between the parties with reference to the tenancy. Therefore, without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents with reference to the alleged tenancy, I am of opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the Rent Controller allowing the amendment with reference to the description of the property. Consequently without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.