B. CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. T.L. ANAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 9-10-2006 wherein the application filed by the respondent for amendment of the eviction petition filed under Section 27(2)(m)(q) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 to include the additional prayer for eviction under Sections 31(c) and 45 of the Act as the respondent has become a senior citizen during the pendency of the petition, has been allowed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 only provide for amendment of the pleadings and not the amendment of law and further submitted that if the petition is filed under Section 31(c) of the Act claiming the benefit of senior citizen, the provisions of Section 45 of the Act would not be applicable and the order has been passed under Section 45 of the Act and having taken the advantage of the said provisions, the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. Learned counsel also submitted that the order passed allowing the amendment would prejudicially affect the petitioner herein. It is well settled that the application for including the additional ground of eviction could be included by way of amendment and in the present case in view of the subsequent event that has occurred during the pendency of the petition filed under Section 27(2)(m)(q) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. i.e. the petitioner has become senior citizen, the ground of eviction under Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act is available to him and therefore he has sought for amendment to include the additional prayer of eviction under the Act and therefore the petitioner in the eviction petition cannot be directed to file a separate petition under Section 31(1) of the Act as the eviction petition has already been filed under Section 27 for evicting the respondent in the eviction petition. If the additional ground accrued during the pendency he can seek amendment by including additional ground and it is always open to the tenant to file additional objections and contest the additional ground of eviction. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner in the eviction petition has already taken the advantage of the order under Section 45 of the Act to pay the arrears of rent he cannot seek amendment of the petition to include the eviction under Section 31(1) of the Act as provisions of Section 45 would not be applicable when petition is under Section 31(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 as it cannot be said that petitioner is taking any advantage under Section 45 of the Act as the petition has been filed under Section 27 of the Act and what is ordered is payment of arrears of rent which is payable by the petitioner and the order to pay the rent, cannot be taken as advantage which is conferred on the landlord and the landlord is entitled to recover rent. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be amendment of law and there can only be amendment of pleading as it is clear that the amendment sought for and allowed by the trial Court is additional ground for eviction under Section 31(1) of the Act by making additional averment and therefore it does not amount to amendment of law. It is only amendment of pleading to the eviction petition to include an additional ground for eviction. Under the circumstances the order allowing the amendment of pleading does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction and accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 9-10-2006. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.