Messrs. Venson Transports and Another vs P. Vaidehi Ammnal

Shanmukham, J.—Same point arises in these two revisions and hence a common order. Indeed parties are the same and both the Tribunals

below passed a common order. The respondent-landlady instituted R.C.O.P. 16 of 1982 for eviction under S.10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, and R.C.O.P. 15 of 1982, for fixation of fair rent against her tenant, the petitioner herein. In

the two petitions she described the tenant in the cause title as ""Messrs. Venson Transport represented by its Manager"". In the tenant''s counter in

both the petitions it is contended that the Manager is only a paid servant who had no authority to deal with the tenancy, that it is only a registered

firm who has a managing partner, who alone has authority to deal with the tenancy, and therefore, the petitions as framed are not maintainable.

Consequently, the respondent herein filed I.As. 173 of 1983 and 172 of 1983 in R.C.O.Ps. 16 and 15 of 1983 respectively for substituting

''Managing partner'' in the place of ''Manager'', in the cause title and also in paragraph 2 of the petitions, The applications were ordered by the

Rent Controller The petitioner filed R.C. As. 46 and 45 of 1984 and they were dismissed by the Appellate authority. Hence these two revisions.

In my anxious consideration the petitioner''s argument that the applications are for amending the petition, that neither the provision in the Act nor

the rules permit any such amendment, and therefore, the orders of the Tribunals below are without jurisdiction and that consequently, the revisions

should be allowed, though rather temping, but on a closer examination is found to be rather misconceived. For, not only in the cause title but also in

the body of both the petitions the respondent (tenant) is show has ''Messrs. Venson Transports''. Further, the reliefs claimed are directed against

such respondent, who is doing transport business but not against the Manager. In paragraph 9 in R.C.O.P. 16 of 1982, the relief claimed is to pass

a judgment and decree evicting the respondent from the schedule premises and directing the respondent to put the petitioner in possession, while in

paragraph 10 in R.C.O. P.15 of 1982, the relief claimed is ''to pass a judgment and decree fixing the fair rent of Rs. 970 for the suit building from

1st June, 1981, and directing the respondent to pay the same till delivery of possession'' I may immediately point out that the respondent is

''Venson Transports''. Thus it is beyond doubt that the tenant is ''Messrs. Venson Transports'', carrying on transport business. Above all, both in

the cause title and in paragraph 2 in both the petitions what is stated is ''Messrs. Venson Transport by its Manager''. In the above circumstances, it

is a misnomer to call it a correction or as an amendment to the petitions. It may not be out of place to point out that a Manager acts on behalf of his

master and that in certain cases he is also empowered to prosecute and defend proceedings on behalf of his master. Indeed only in the counter it is

pleaded that the Manager had no authority to deal with the tenancy. Then, I am of the firm conviction that what was permitted by the Tribunals

below is not an amendment to the pleadings but merely an error in naming the person representing the respondent-tenant.

There are judicial precedents of this Court wherein it was held that the Rent Controller possesses the inherent power to amend the door number

and to permit the parties to reopen the case even after the Rent Controller had reserved judgment, but before the judgment is actually delivered

See Raman Nair v. Govindasami Naidu 1963 2 M.L.J. 19 : 76 L.W. 252.. I follow the principle settled by Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. and hold that

the Rent Controller has inherent power to permit such corrections as has been ordered in these two petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner

drew my attention to the decision reported in Ponnammal v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police 98 L.W. 47 (S.N.). This decision has not

considered this matter at all. In Krishnamoorthy v. M/s. Jagat Textiles 94 L.W. 160., Sathiadev, J. held that the procedure to be followed in

disposing of revision under S.25 of the Act being governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the power of the review having been

conferred therein expressly, the review petition was maintainable. In Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Rajammal 1965 1 M.L.J. 287: 78 L.W. 611.,

Kailasam, J. as he then was, has held, that the Rent Controller is not a court and the CPC is not applicable, that he has no power to appoint a

Commissioner to inspect the premises and make a report for fixing fair rent, that the report of the Commissioner by itself cannot be evidence and

that it may be if the Commissioner is examined as a witness he may rely on his report to substantiate his evidence. It must be immediately stated

that in the new Act, there is provision enabling the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to appoint a Commissioner. In

Munisami Naidu v. Kashim Khan 1971 2 M.L.J. 379; 84 L.W. 521., Ramanujam, J. has held that the preponderance of judicial opinion is that the

CPC as such will not apply to the proceedings before the authorities constituted under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and

that O.6, R.17, cannot be invoked by them. He further held that even assuming that the Rent Controller, or the Appellate Authority had an inherent

power to set right mistakes committed by inadvertence in a petition for eviction, the respondent (before him) was not entitled to have the

amendment sought for by him, so as to permit him to seek a review of the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel also cited

the decision in Kanagaratnammal v. Sama Rao 1955 2 M.L.J. 433 : 68 L.W. 763 D.B., It is enough to say that that decision has not dealt with this

question at all. As already pointed out, the present applications are to correct inadvertent error and that too, in disclosing name of the person who

is authorised to represent the tenant. In the circumstances, these revisions fail and are dismissed, but without costs.