Murugesan vs C.P. Nataraja Mudaliar

Sathiadev, J.—Tenant is the petitioner. Aggrieved against ah Order of the. Appellate Authority permitting amendment of petition filed for

eviction tenant had filed this revision. Respondent v had claimed that he is the owner of two adjoining buildings bearing Nos. 60 and 61 in

Alamelumangapuram Road, and that instead of typing the number as 60, and the rent payable thereon as Rs. 23, they having been typed as 61 and

Rs 25, he had asked for amendment of the petition. He had also filed another petition for similar ''relief in R.C.O.P. No. 2675 of 1983 against that

tenant in respect of the other property, and when both of them were being typed, this error had occasioned.

This plea was opposed by tenant on the ground that, even in the counter-statement, the error committed by the landlord having been pointed out

and no immediate step having been taken he cannot ask for amendment at a time when the petition was being heard for final hearing, and that if the

amendment is allowed, it would result in the character of the petition itself being changed.

Rent controller upheld this objection; whereas the Appellate ''Authority took the contrary view, and it had resulted in the filling of this revision

petition.

Mr. Tajudeen, Learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner, submits; that no provision having been made under T.N. Act 18 of 1960, and the

rules framed thereunder, for an amendment to be carried out in a petition, anti as the provisions of CPC would have no application, the petition has

to be dismissed, as it relates to a wrong property, and hence, the Appellate Authority had acted without jurisdiction. He would also claim that

against the Order refusing to amend passed by Rent Controller, no appeal was maintainable, and therefore, the Order of the Appellate Authority

was illegal. In support of these contentions, he first refers to the decision in V. Munusami Naidu Vs. A. Kasim Khan, , wherein the landlord in the

appellate stage sought for amendment of the petition by introducing Section 10(3)(c) instead of Section 10(3)(a)(i) so that he could secure eviction

by raising the plea of additional accommodation. It was held therein that as the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. would not apply, and the

inherent power which could be envisaged in proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority for setting right mistakes

committed by inadvertance would not take within its fold amendment of the nature asked for in changing the character of the petition. He also

refers to the decision in Aruppukottai Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. M. Periaswami (1974) T.L.N.J. 247 wherein it was held that the Rent

Controller is not a Court, and therefore, the provisions of CPC would have no application.

Mr. Sivamani, Learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord, refers to Venson Transports v. Vaiduri Ammal (1986) T.L.N.J. 123, wherein the

inherent power of the Rent Controller to amend the door number as held in Raman Nair. v. Govindaswami Naidu (1963) 2 M.L.J. 19 was taken

note of, and the inadvertent error in disclosing the name of the person'', who was authorised to represent the tenant therein, was allowed to be

corrected. In Jalaluddin. v. Mohammed Ismail and Anr. (1986) T.L.N.J. 83 an amendment for proper description of the property was allowed to

be carried out.

The view taken in V. Munusami Naidu Vs. A. Kasim Khan, that amendment, which would result in the character of the petition itself being

changed cannot be allowed, would have no application to an amendment being allowed for correcting inadvertant errors, and which would have no

reference to the nature of the petition already filed. In the appellate stage, when an amendment was sought to be made so ''as to change the ground

under which the relief was asked, it was held by the learned Judge in V. Munusami Naidu Vs. A. Kasim Khan, that such an amendment was not

permissible. But, in the instant case, the amendment is to correct the petition by incorporating the correct door number and the rent payable

thereon. Landlord had filed two petitions in respect of two adjoining premises, and in typing the petitions at the same time, an error having

occasioned inadvertantly, the objection taken by the tenant carries no substance whatsoever. What is stated is that, it is for the landlord to file a

fresh petition, and in spite of this error having been pointed out at the stage of filling of the counter, no step having been taken, at the belated stage,

such a correction should not be allowed. If filing of a fresh application is permissible, then there is no harm in having the correct door number being

substituted in the petition already filed. No doubt, there was blatedness as claimed, but that was the reason why the Appellate Authority had

awarded cost of Rs. 100 for the inconvenience caused to the tenant.

The other point taken is that, the appeal filed by the landlord was not maintainable. Mr. Sivamani, by referring to Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs.

The Home Insurance Co. of New York, , contends that it is not the form but the nature of the Order that has to be examined to find out whether

there is determination of any right or liability, and that a refusal to amend affects the rights of parties. Hence, he contends that when the Rent

Controller refused amendment, it affects the valuable right of the landlord.

In Ponnammal. v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (1985) 98 L.W 47. (Summary of Cases), it was held that if an Order in an interlocutory

application is to affect the decision of the case on merits, then an appeal would lie, and therefore, the amendment allowed by the Rent Controller

could be appealed against.

Mr. Tajudeen, on his part, refers to the decision in Chinnarraju Naidu. v. Bavani Bai (1981) 2 M.L.J. 354 wherein it was held that an Order

permitting the landlord to correct the door number of the premises is only procedural in character and cannot be said to be a final Order, which

would come within the definition of an ""Order"" occurring in Section 23(1)(b) of the Act. It was further held that only the Order that affects the

rights and liabilities of the parties in the sense that they become final Orders, though passed on an interlocutory application, an appeal could be

preferred.

In V.S. Devadoss Vs. S. Velu and Another, it was pointed out that an Order which did not in any manner decide or even purport to affect any

right of either the petitioner or respondent cannot be appealed against. In that case, the Order appealed against declined to enquire into the

question of bona fides of the denial of title of petitioner by respondent as a preliminary issue. Such an Order was held as not appealable u/s 23 of

the Act. Learned Judge who decided the case dealt with in Chinnaraju Naidu. v. Bavani Bai (1981) 2 M.L.J. 354 took a similar view in Hyath

Basha Vs. Tajan Bi, . Thus, it would be seen that an Order passed by a Rent Controller in an interlocutory application, and which does not affect

the rights and liabilities of the parties in the sense that they become final Orders, could not be appealed against. By refusal of an amendment of

door number, it would not only result in the dismissal of interlocutory application, but in turn lead to the main petition itself being dismissed. Thus, it

would acquire the character of a final Order so far as the landlord is concerned. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, an Order refusing to

amend affects the rights of parties could lead to the main relief claimed by the petitioner being rejected. Hence, the appeal] preferred against the

Order of the Rent'' Controller was maintainable.

In his turn, Mr. Sivamani, would claim that this revision petition itself, is not maintainable. In any event, when the Order as passed by the

Appellate Authority could be supervised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no need to go into this objection.

Hence, for the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.