LAWS(KER)-1966-6-7

LALITHA R PRABHU Vs. KRISHNA ALIAS LAKSHMI BAI

Decided On June 07, 1966
LALITHA R. PRABHU Appellant
V/S
KRISHNA ALIAS LAKSHMI BAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P1 order passed by the Rent Control Court allowing an amendment of a Rent Control Petition. The landlord filed the petition for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the landlord required the building for her own use and also on the ground that the tenants had committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord had leased the building for the purpose of conducting a cinema to a firm of which the petitioner's deceased husband was a partner. A suit for dissolution of the partnership was filed by the petitioner as O. S.2/1963 of the Tellicherry District Court. A receiver was appointed in that suit. At a public auction, the commissioner appointed in the case sold the assets of the partnership on 20th May 1964, and they were purchased by the petitioner. In pursuance to the sale the petitioner was put in possession of the building in question on 6th June 1964. The case of the 1st respondent is that the commissioner has effected the sale as representative of the parties who are entitled to the assets and that the sale constitutes a transfer by the tenants of their rights under the lease, that the transfer is without her consent, and as the lessee has ceased to occupy the building the landlord is entitled to get recovery of possession. It may be noted that the alleged transfer in favour of the petitioner was subsequent to the date of the filing of the rent control petition. What the 1st respondent wanted was that this ground also should be included in the Rent Control Petition by way of amendment. This was allowed by the Rent Control Court and it is to quash that order that the writ petition is filed.

(2.) The grounds on which the order is challenged are that the order is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the Rent Control Petition. Counsel for the petitioner relied on S.23 of Act 16 of 1959 and said that the Rent Control Court is invested with the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code only to the limited extent as provided in that section and that there is no power in that court to amend the pleadings. The Rent Control Court relied on clause (j) of that section and stated that pleadings being part of the proceedings can be amended. S.23 (j) reads:

(3.) It was argued on the basis of the ruling in Mrs. George v. Additional Munsiff (1961 KLT, 114) that the Rent Control Court has power to amend the proceedings. But that ruling does not touch the point raised here, as the ruling does not consider the question whether the non inclusion of a ground for eviction which arose subsequent to the filing of the petition is a 'defect' in the proceedings.