HAKEEM LAXMAIAH Vs. KANTHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent landlady filed R C No. 170 of 1975 before the Rent Controller for eviction of her tenant on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of the arrears of rent during the Period from 1st April, 1974 to 30th April, 1975 The tenant denied these allegations. Just before the commencement of the trial, the landlady filed a petition in I. A No. 711 of 1975 under Order 6, rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of the eviction petition by adding an allegation that the tenant committed wilful default in paying the arrears of rent during the subsequent period from May to 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 Judge. City Small Causes Court. Hence this revision.

(2.) Sri Prakasa Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. (I) the Appellate Court while reversing the order of the Rent Controller erroneously exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest in it inasmuch as no appeal lies from the order passed on an interlocutory application. 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 interlocutory application for amendment and therefore, no prejudice will be caused.

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