Kerala High Court
Ramalingam S vs V Brindha on 6 March, 2017
Bench: K.Harilal, V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
OP (RC).NO. 55 OF 2017 (O)
---------------------------
(IA 461/2017 IN RCP.12/2015 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM)
PETITIONER:
------------
RAMALINGAM S, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.SHANKARAMOORTHI, SIVAKRIPAYIL HOUSE, VAIKOM P.O.
VAIKKOM VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIEN
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. V BRINDHA
W/O.MAHADEVAN, REVATHI HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMCHERI
NADUVILE MURIYIL, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.
2. RAJAN
W/O.KRISHNAYYAR, REVATHI HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMCHERI
NADUVILE MURIYIL, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001 .
3. K.MAHADEVAN
S/O.KRISHNAYYAR, REVATHI HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMCHERI
NADUVILE MURIYIL, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001 .
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (RC).NO. 55 OF 2017 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN R.C.P.NO.12/2015 OF THE
RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM.
EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
HEREIN IN CRP NO.12/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM.
EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION (I.A.461/2017 IN RCP
NO.12/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM).
EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
IN I.A.461/2017 IN RCP NO.12/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,
VAIKOM.
EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2017 IN
I.A.461/2017 IN RCP NO.12/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,
VAIKOM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
------------------------
OKB
// True copy//
P.A. to Judge
K.HARILAL & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JJ.
---------------------------
O.P.(R.C.) No.55 of 2017
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Harilal, J.
The petitioner herein is the sole tenant in R.C.P.No.12/2015 of the Rent Control Court, Vaikom, who is sought to be evicted by the respondent/landlord under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act'). Now the trial has commenced and the respondent was examined in evidence and the evidence was closed. While so, on 4.3.2017 the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 461/2017 in the above RCP for amending the RCP. The petitioner herein had filed Ext.P4 objection. After considering the objection raised by the petitioner, the Rent Control Court allowed the amendment application by Ext.P5 order. The legality and propriety of the said order are challenged in this O.P.(R.C).
OP(RC).55/17-O :2:
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
3. The matter sought to be amended is a correction in the schedule only. But according to the petitioner, the said correction will change the identity of the shop room, from which the petitioner is sought to be evicted. We have gone through the pleadings in the Rent Control Petition as well as the objection filed by the petitioner. It is well discernible from the pleadings in the RCP that the petition schedule property is a shop room let out to the petitioner by virtue of the registered rent deed No.500/2014 of Vaikkom Sub Registry and going by the objection filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has rightly understood the identity of the petition schedule shop room from which he was sought to be evicted. It is true that there is some mistake in the schedule. It is not in accordance with the pleadings. Going by the application seeking amendment, it is understood that the respondent wants to make a schedule in accordance with the OP(RC).55/17-O :3:
pleadings.
4. Thus, the proposed amendment will not change the identity of the petition schedule shop room or the same will not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. The proposed amendment would give more clarity to the petition schedule. In other words, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. That apart, we find that what is sought to be amended is a correction of an error only in the schedule and correction of such error would fall under Section 23(J) of the Act.
5. In the above view, we find that the court below is justified in allowing the amendment application. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently this O.P.(R.C) is dismissed.
6. If the Commissioner was examined in evidence, the petitioner is allowed to file an application to recall the Commissioner or witnesses and re-examine them in view of the amendment and if an application is filed for the same, the Rent Control Court shall dispose of the same in OP(RC).55/17-O :4:
accordance with law, at the earliest.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., Judge.
okb.