ABDUL KAREEM Vs. MUHAMMED SHAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord who filed Ext.P1 Rent Control Petition seeking an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act'). After filing Ext.P1 Rent Control Petition, he filed Exts.P3 & P5 applications for amending Ext.P1 and appointing an Advocate Commission. After considering Exts.P4 & P6 objections, the Rent Control Court passed Exts.P7 & P8 orders. The legality and correctness of the findings whereby Exts.P3 & P5 stand rejected, are challenged in this Original Petition (RC).

(2.) According to the petitioner, originally, the Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Subsequently, after filing the petition, the respondent has acquired possession and occupied three other shop rooms in the same locality and thereby, he is entitled to get eviction under Sec. 11(4)(iii) of the Act also. In that circumstance, he has preferred Ext.P3 application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the C.P.C.') and Sec. 23 (1)(j) of the Act to amend the petition, so as to incorporate the grounds under Sec. 11(4)(iii) of the Act also.

(3.) The respondent filed objections contending that the alleged acquisition of the possession and occupation of three other rooms were after filing of the Rent Control Petition. According to him, even if the said allegation is true, that ground cannot be incorporated in the petition by way of amendment, as the cause of action did not arise at the time of filing the petition and thereby, it can never be deemed to be an omission falling either under "defect" or "error" contemplated under Sec. 23 (1)(j) of the Act.