VENSON TRANSPORTS Vs. P VAIDEHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAME point arises in these two revisions hence a common order. Indeed, parties are the same and both the Tribunals below passed a common order.

(2.) THE respondent-landlady instituted R.C.O.P.No. 16/82 for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 and R.C.O.P.No.15/82 for fixation of fair rent against her tenant, the petitioner herein. In the two petitions she described the tenant in the cause title as -M/s. Venson Transport, represented by its Manager-. In the tenant-s counter in both the petitions it is contended that the Manager is only a paid servant who had no authority to deal with the tenancy, that it is only a registered firm who has a managing partner, who alone has authority to deal with the tenancy and therefore, the petitions as framed are not maintainable. Consequently, the respondent herein filed I.A.Nos. 173 of 1983 and 172 of 1983 in R.C.O.P.Nos.16 and 15 of 1983 respectively for substituting -Managing Partner- in the place of -Manager- in the cause title and also in paragraph 2 of the petitions. THE applications were ordered by the Rent Controller. THE petitioner filed R.C.A.Nos.46 and 45 of 1984 and they were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Hence these two revisions.

(3.) THERE are judicial precedents of this court wherein it was held that the Rent Controller possesses the -inherent power to amend the door number and to permit the parties to re-open the case even after the Rent Controller had reserved judgment but before the judgment is actually delivered (See. Raman Nair v. Govindasami Naidu, (1963)2 M.L.J.19. I follow the principle settled by Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. and held that the Rent Controller has inherent power to permit such corrections as has been ordered in these two petitions.