V MUNUSAMI NAIDU Vs. A KASIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent landlord filed an application for eviction against the petitioner on three grounds (1) wilful default in payment of the rent, (2) use of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it had been led and (3) requirement of the building by the respondent bona fide for his own occupation. The petition was resisted by the petitioner contending that there has been no wilful default in payment of the rents, that the building has not been put to a different use and that the requirement of the respondent-landlord for his own occupation was not at all bona fide. The Rent Controller held that the alleged wilful default has not been made out and that the premises also has not been used for a different purpose by the petitioner. On the question of owner's occupation the respondent has referred in his eviction petition to Section 10 (3) (a) (i) but the evidence adduced on his behalf was to the effect that his family has been in occupation of a room in the premises in question, that the room is found to be quite insufficient for the occupation of the family and that therefore he requires the premises for additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) of Madras Act 18 of 1960. Dealing with this question the Rent Controller said:

(2.) THE respondent-landlord appealed against the order of the Rent Controller refusing to pass an order for eviction and in that appeal he filed an application for amendment of his petition seeking to give the correct provision of law, that is section 10 (3) (c) instead of Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act and ad a new para in his petition for eviction. This application for amendment filed at the appellate stage was resisted by the petitioner and the appellate authority allowed the amendment sought for by the respondent. According to the appellate authority the respondent has made all the necessary allegation in his petition for eviction for the application of Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act, but that unfortunately he has quoted the wrong provision of law in his petition, and that in order to determine the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it was just and necessary that the petition for amendment should be allowed. As against the said order allowing the petition for amendment the petitioner went in revision before the revisional court and it has confirmed the order allowing the amendment sought for by the respondent. It is against that order of the revisional authority this revision has been filed.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the provisions of the Civil procedure Code cannot be applied to the proceedings for eviction before the authorities constituted under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and as such they have no jurisdiction to permit the amendment of pleadings. Reference has been made to the following decisions. In Abdul Khadir Madjidar v. A. K. Murthy, 1947-2 Mad LJ 482 = (AIR 1948 Mad 285) the question arose whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte decree. A division Bench of this court held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code not having been made applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act, the application to set aside an ex parte decree was not maintainable. In Rayala corpn. , Madras v. Syed Bawkar and Co. , another Division Bench had observed that the Rent Controllers are not courts, and that therefore the proceedings before them are not governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure code. In Fernandes v. Ranganayakulu Chetti, Ramswami, J. has expressed the view that the Civil P. C. was not intended to be generally applicable to proceedings under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and that the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. are not applicable when a revision petition filed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has been dismissed. In a recent decision of Kailasam, J. in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Rajammal, (1964) 77 Mad LW 611 it was expressed that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court and the Civil P. C. is not applicable to the Rent Control Court and that therefore he had no power to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of determining the fair rent. To the same effect was she decision of Natesan, J. in chennakesavalu v. Mansukhlal, 1966-1 Mad LJ 300. In a very recent decision rendered by Raghavan, J. in C. R. P. No 2152 of 1968 (Mad) Ethirajalu Chetti v. Lakshmikantammal, it has been held that an application for impleading a person as a party under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. will not lie in proceeding initiated before the Rent Controller for eviction of a tenant. Relying on the above decision the petitioner contends that the appellate authority has no power to allow the amendment of the petition at the appellate stage, while an application for amendment of the petition under O. 6, R. 17 Civil P. C. will not lie even before the rent Controller.