ABDULLA Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent herein (landlord) on 27-5-1982 filed RCP. 10/1982 before the Rent Controller, Taliparamba for eviction of the petitioner herein (tenant) under S.11(2)(b) and (3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the tenant has kept rent in arrears and the landlord bona fide needs the building for the occupation of his dependant son who needs the same for starting a business. The tenant filed a counter statement opposing the claim. On 28-6-1982, second respondent filed IA. 539/1982 seeking to amend the RC. petition by incorporating the fact that the business to be started by his son is business in foot-wear, umbrellas, suit-case bag etc. The application was opposed but was allowed by the Rent Controller under Ext. P3 order. The legality of this order is now challenged by the tenant under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction or power to allow an amendment of the petition for eviction filed by the landlord. In this connection, reliance is placed on S.23 of the Act. Sub-s.(1) of S.23 states that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority shall have the powers which are vested in the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of matters enumerated therein. Clause (j) mentions "power to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings". S.31 of the Act confers on the State Government power to make rules to carry on the purposes of the Act. The matters in regard to which rules would be framed, without prejudice to the generality of the power mentioned above, are set out in sub-s.(2). In 1979 rules were framed. The rules do not specifically confer any power on the Rent Controller to allow amendment of pleadings.

(3.) According to petitioner, the need set up by the landlord is not bona fide; if it is bona fide, the particular nature of the business intended to be commenced by his son would have been specified in the eviction petition but that had not been done It is to fill up this lacuna by mentioning the specific nature of the business that the amendment application has been filed. It is further contended that assuming that eviction petition is a proceeding within the meaning of S.23(1)(j) of the Act, this lacuna is not a defect or error in the proceedings which could be corrected by the Rent Controller.