MOHAMED GANI Vs. RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who is the respondent in R. C. O. P. No. 23 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, (filed by the respondent for the said tenant's eviction on the ground of owner' s occupation, in relation to a non-residential, building), is the petitioner in this revision petition. THE said revision is against the order, allowing I. A. No. 33 of 1994 in the said R. C. O. P. THE said I. A. was filed by the respondent for amendment of the petition in the said R. C. O. P. , so that the said petition included another ground for eviction, viz. , denial of title. Admittedly the said application was filed since subsequent to the filing of the abovesaid r. C. O. P. , the petitioner had denied the title of the respondent, in the counter to the said R. C. O. P.

(2.) THE only question argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has no power to amend the pleadings in the R. C. O. P. , which affects the rights of parties. In other words, O. 6. Rule 17, C. P. C. , as such is not applicable to the rent control proceedings though the Rent Controller has been held to be a'court'for certain purposes, like Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. He also relied on the decisions in munisami Naidu v. Kasim Khan, (1971)2 M. L. J. 379: A. l. R. 1972 Mad. 437: 84 L. W. 521, In re. , S. N. Komaraswami Gounder, (1951)1 M. L. J. 422: A. l. R. 1951 Mad. 766: 64 L. W. 730: 1951 M. W. N. 227 (D. B.), Aruppukottai Dravida Munnetra kazhagam v. M. Periaswami and another. 1974 T. L. NJ. 247 and Jalaluddin v. Mohammed Ismail and another 1986 T. L. N. J. 83.

(3.) BUT, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that ganapathy Ammal v. Chandaresan, (1994)2 L. W. 622 does not say that the Rent controller is court for all purposes. BUT, I am unable to read the said my decision as well as the earlier decision in Raju v. Mohamadabi, (1993)2 L. W. 171 in that way. In fact, in the above referred to Sukhdev Prasad v. Rambhujarati, A. l. R. 1982 Bom. 25 (D. B.), which arose under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House-Rates Control Act of 1947, application filed to raise additional grounds for eviction, which became avai1-able in view of denial of title, was allowed, on the ground that the amendment was only consequential on the denial of title found in the amendment to written statement, which was allowed.