GANDHAM SATYANARAYANA Vs. SIRANGAM SATYANARAYANA MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Sub-ordinate Judge given on 27th July, 1966 whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. The essential facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction against the petitioner-tenant before me on various grounds including the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises. It was alleged inter alia that the landlord purchased the premises on 15th October, 1965. He being a dentist, and running the dispensary in a rented room, wanted to occupy the premises bath for the purpose of his residence as well as for running the dispensary. He also alleged that the tenant has sublet to respondent No. 2 (in the eviction petition). The tenant denied the allegation of subletting. While the matters stood thus, the landlord filed an application seeking amendment of his petition contending that by mistake and ignorance the name of the subtenant was wrongly given. He alleged that he came to know thereafter the correct name of the sub-tenant as ' Pennada Veeranna'' and not the 2nd respondent (in the eviction petition). He therefore wanted Pennada Veeranna's name to be substituted for the 2nd respondent after making necessary amendment in the petition relating thereto. This petition was resisted by the tenant mainly on the ground that there is no parallel provision to Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and the rules made thereunder. No permission to amend the petition therefore can be granted. It was further contended that if the landlord wants to proceed against Pennada Veeranna and the tenant, he should file a separate petition. The Rent Controller rejecting the contention of the tenant allowed the petition to be amended by his order dated 29th March, 1966.

(2.) The tenant carried the matter in appeal. The Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram by his judgment dated 27th July, 1966 dismissed the appeal. The principal contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that since there is no provision in the Act or the rules made thereunder which can be said to be parallel to Order 6, rule ] 7, Civil Procedure Code, the Rent Controller was not competent to grant any permission to amend the petition. I do not think that I can give effect to this contention. It is relevant to notice section 4, Civil Procedure Code, in this connection. Section 4, Civil Procedure Code, in so far as it is relevant runs as follows :

(3.) A reading cf this section would indicate that when anything in the Civil Procedure Code, is in conflict with anything in the special or local law or with any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, the Code will not prevail so as to override such inconsistent provisions. It is necessarily implied that when there is no such conflict the Code will apply. This is based on the principle that the special law prevails over the general law. It must be remembered that the Civil Procedure Code, or any analogous law being an adjective law is not primarily intended to create new rights or to take away existing rights. It mainly regulates the procedure in Courts. If the Act and the rules made thereunder, in other words, the special law or the local law which prescribes a particular procedure, is silent on any specific procedure, it must necessarily follow that the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, would be applied to such a case as it cannot be said that such an application would be inconsistent with the special or local law.