MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY Vs. OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control Authorities allowing the Application filed under Rule 12(2) and 28(7) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Rules r/w O. 8 R. 9 C. P. C to receive Additional Counter Statement.

(2.) 1. Brief facts necessitated for the disposal of this Revision Petition are as follows:- The Respondent became Tenant under the Petitioners in respect of a portion of the premises bearing Door No. 37, West Mada Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai-13 for non-residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. Seeking fixation of fair rent of Rs. 10,177/-, the Petitioners / Landlords filed R. C. O. P. No. 2593 of 1994 on the file of XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. Fair rent was sought for on the calculation of cost of construction of Madras Terraced Building (960 sq. ft) and Zinc Roofed Building (390 sq. ft) and market value of land. 2. 2. Denying allegations in the Petition, the Respondent / Tenant filed Counter Statement in January 1995 contending that monthly rent of Rs. 750/- being paid by Respondent is fair rent and that could be fixed as fair rent or alternatively to fix fair rent according to the Report of the Respondent's Engineer. 2. 3. Trial commenced and P. W. 1 was examined. Evidence of P. W. 1 was stretched over from 08. 11. 1995 to 17. 07. 1996. At the stage when the matter was adjourned for Respondent's Evidence, the Respondent filed M. P. No. 494 of 1996 seeking permission before the Rent Controller to file Additional Counter Statement raising a new plea that the Respondent is a Tenant of land alone in respect of portion of tenancy premises to the extent of about 600 sq. ft. In the Additional Counter Statement, the Respondent raised new plea that Respondent " Olympic Industries is only a Lessee of land measuring about 600 sq. ft. , and Lessee of the room measuring 400 sq. ft. , in the main building. 2. 4. The Petitioners / Landlords resisted that Application contending that Additional Counter Statement containing new and inconsistent plea raised by the Respondent / Tenant at the belated stage, more particularly after completion of examination of Witnesses cannot be allowed and that it would cause serious prejudice to the Petitioners / Landlords. 2. 5. After extracting the contentions of both parties, the Rent Controller allowed the Application on the only ground that opportunity is to be given to the Respondent / Tenant to put forth the defence. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners / Landlords preferred R. C. A. No. 257 of 1999. Referring to various decisions, the Appellate Authority found that when the existence of Lease is admitted, the party can file Additional Counter Statement. The Appellate Authority took the view that the averments in the Additional Counter Statement would not alter the position of the parties and that case is Part Heard and the Petitioners / Landlords would have sufficient opportunity to challenge the averments in the Additional Counter Statement. Concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities allowing the Application to receive Additional Counter Statement is challenged in this Revision Petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent has contended that there is no inconsistent plea in the Additional Counter Statement. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2000 (2) L. W. 313, learned counsel for the Respondent has contended that the Courts should be more generous in allowing Amendment in the case of Written Statement since the Respondent has right to take alternative plea in the defence.