MAREENA Vs. ELIZABETH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents, mother and son, filed RCP No. 111/08 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant. In the petition, she pressed into service the ground under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). That petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. By the judgment dated 11/7/12, the RCA was allowed. The tenant filed RCR No. 416/12, in which this Court set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanded the case back to the appellate authority with a direction to allow the respondents to amend the pleadings. Accordingly, the landlady/1st respondent filed IA No. 2292/13 for amendment which was not opposed by the tenant and was allowed by order dated 30/5/13. By this amendment, the landlady sought to incorporate necessary pleadings supporting special reasons as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It appears that though the order dated 30/5/13 required the landlady to carry out the amendment within three days, that was not done. To the amended RCP, the tenant filed her objections on 11/6/13. Subsequently, on 24/6/13, the first respondent was examined before the appellate authority as PW2. Thereafter, the case was heard on 29/6/13 and finally judgment was rendered on 16th of July, 2013. It is challenging this judgment of the appellate authority, the tenant has filed this revision.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlady.

(3.) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment pursuant to the order in IA No. 2292/13 was carried out by the tenants only on 16/7/13. According to the counsel, since the judgment was rendered on that day itself, tenant did not get an opportunity to file her objections to the amended RCP. In so far as this contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant is concerned, a perusal of the orders on IA No. 2292/13 show that, on 30/5/13, stating that the respondents have no objection, the IA was allowed and the landlady was directed to carry out the amendment in the rent control petition within three days. It is thereafter that the tenant filed her objection on 11/6/13 and the objection itself shows that the objection filed is to the amended RCP (though it is wrongly stated in the first sentence that the amendment is to the RCA). Verification of the records show that the landlady erroneously carried out the amendment in the appeal memorandum although the amendment allowed was in the rent control petition itself. Subsequently, finding out the mistake, amendment carried out in the rent control appeal was struck off and corresponding amendment was carried out in the rent control petition itself. Such amendment carried out in the rent control petition was on 11/7/13 and thereafter a copy of the amended rent control petition is concededly handed over to the learned counsel for the tenant on 16/7/13.