HAKEEM LAXMIAH Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent land lady filed C. No. 170 of 1975 before the Rent Controller for eviction of her tenant the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of the rears of rent during the period from 1-4-1974 to 30-4-1976. The tenant nied these allegations. Just before the commencement of the trial, the nd lady filed a petition in I A No. 711 of 1975 under order 6 Rule 17 read ith section 151 of the Code of civil procedure for the amendment of the iction petition by adding an allegation that the tenant committed wilful sfault in paying the arrears of rent during the subsequent period from May July, 1975. The Rent Controller rejected the amendment petition, against which R.A. No. 48 of 1976 was preferred and it was allowed by the Chief idge, City Small Causes Court. Hence this revision.

(2.) Sri Prakasa Rao the learned counsel for the Petitioner raised two mentions. (1) the appellate Court while reversing the order of the Rent ontroller erroneously exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest in it much as no appeal lies from the order passed on an interlocutory applt cation. Secondly the petition for amendment, if allowed, alters the very nature of the case which raises fresh cause of action. The landlady can as well file a separate petition for eviction on the ground which is sought to be raised by the inierlocutary application for amendment and therefore tie prejudice will be caused.

(3.) In support of the first contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Ma Shwe Mya vs. Maung Mo Hnaung wherein he has been observed as under :