JALALUDDIN Vs. MOHAMMED ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant (2nd respondent in the eviction petition) is the revision petitioner herein. THE 1st respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, THE tenant/revision petitioner contended that he is not a tenant, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them, that he is the owner of the land and that he has put up the superstructure 3t his own cost. Later, the landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking amendment of the description of property. In the petition for eviction, he had described the subject-matter as a thatched house, and he prayed for an amendment that the subject-matter is a tiled roof house. THE 2nd respondent (tenant) objected to this amendment, but the Rent Controller overruled the objection and ordered amendment. Aggrieved by this, he has come forward with this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner/ tenant argued that Order 6, rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to Rent Control proceedings and, therefore, the order allowing the amendment should be set aside. Learned Counsel also relied upon a ruling reported in Munisami Naidu v. Kasim Khan, (1971)2 M.L.J. 379: 84 L.W. 521: A.I.R. 1972 Mad. 437 for the proposition that the Code of Civil Procedure as such will not be applicable to the Rent Control proceedings and that therefore Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked.

(3.) THE facts of the case before us are entirely different. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed the petition even before the Rent Controller and the amendment sought for is only with reference to the description of property i.e. whether it is a tiled building or it is a thatched roof building. THE amendment is only with reference to the description of the pattern of the superstructure and it has not gone farther. Learned Counsel for the landlord argued that a wrong description was given and the mistake was one committed by inadver-tance and therefore he might be permitted to amend the description of property with reference to the nature of the construction. Reliance was also placed on a ruling reported in Chinna Raju Naidu v. Bavani Bai, (1981)2 M.L.J.354 wherein a learned single Judge of this court has affirmed the order of amendment passed by the Rent Controller with reference to the door number of the premise". THE learned Judge held that an order in an interlocutory application permitting the landlord to correct the door number of the premises in question is only procedural in character and that it does not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. Similarly, in the present case before us, the rights and liabilities of the parties are not affected by the mere amendment in respect of the description of the superstructure. In fact, it is strenuously contended on behalf of the tenant-revision petitioner, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant sets up title in himself both to the superstructure as well as to the site. THErefore, the main dispute between the parties is intact and the description of the superstructure is not very materia! having regard to the basic dispute between the parties with reference to the tenancy. THErefore, without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents with reference to the alleged tenancy, I am of opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the Rent Controller allowing the amendmant with reference to the description of the property. Consequently without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.