MURUGESAN Vs. C P NATARAJA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the petitioner. Aggrieved against an order of the. Appellate Authority permitting amendment of petition filed for eviction tenant had filed this revision." Respondent had claimed that he is the owner of two adjoining buildings bearing Nos. 60 and 61 in Alamelumangapuram Road, and that instead of typing the number as 60, and the rent payable thereon as Rs.23, they having been typed as 61 and Rs 25, he had asked for amendment of the petition. He had also filed another petition for similar relief in R.C.O.P.No.2675 of 1983 against that tenant in respect of the other property, and when both of them were being typed, this error had occasioned.

(2.) THIS plea was opposed by tenant on the ground that, even in the counter-statement, the error committed by the landlord having been pointed out and no immediate step having been taken he cannot ask for amendment at a time when the petition was being heard for final hearing, and that if the amendment is allowed, it would result in the character of the petition itself being changed.

(3.) MR. Tajudeen, learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner, submits, that no provision having been made under T.N. Act 18 of 1960, and the rules framed thereunder, for an amendment to be carried out in a petition, and as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code would have no application, the petition has to be dismissed, as it relates to a wrong property, and hence, the Appellate Authority had acted without jurisdiction. He would also claim that against the order refusing to amend passed by Rent Controller, no appeal was maintainable, and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority was illegal. In support of these contentions, he first refers to the decision in Munisami Naidu v. Kasim Khan (1971)2 M.L.J. 379: A.I.R 1972 Mad 437: 84 L.W. 521, wherein the landlord in the appellate stage sought for amendment of the petition by introducing section 10 (3) (c) instead of section 10 (3) (a) (i) so that he could secure eviction by raising the plea of additional accommodation. It was held therein that as the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. would not apply, and the inherent power which could be envisaged in proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority for setting right mistakes committed by inadvertance would not take within its fold amendment of the nature asked for in changing the character of the petition. He also refers to the decision in Aruppukottai Dravida Munnetra Kazha-gafm. v. M.Periaswami, (1974) T.L.N.J. 24 7 wherein it was held that the Rent Controller is not a Court, and therefore, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code would have no application.