S.E.A. Raja vs M.R. Lakshminarasimha Gupta and Others

Venkataswami, J.—This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the learned Rent

Controller (District Munsif), Karur, in I.A. No. 203 of 1987 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1987, dated 6.11.1987.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision petition are as under:

Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed H.R.G.O.P. No. 8 of 1987 against the petitioner herein for an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default

and Owner''s occupation. The petitioner herein, while opposing the eviction petition, inter alia has stated in his counter that his father was the

original tenant of the suit premises, that after his death, his mother became the tenant, and after the death of the mother, himself and his four

brothers have become tenants and, therefore in the absence of his four brothers, the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of

proper parties. In order to get over the above technical objection, the respondents 1 to 4 landlords filed I.A. No. 203 of 1987 purporting to be an

application to implead respondents 5 to 8 herein as parties to the eviction petition. That application was again opposed by the petitioner herein

stating that inasmuch as the landlords failed to implead proper parties at the inception, the application for impleading cannot be maintained as there

is no provision in the Rent Control Act or the Rules framed thereunder to invoke the provisions of the CPC at that stage.

The learned Rent Controller overruling the objections raised by the petitioner herein, allowed the application. Aggrieved by that, the present civil

revision petition is preferred by the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC will have no application as the

Rent Controller is not a Court and there is no provision in the Rent Control Act to apply the provisions of the CPC to the proceedings under the

Rent Control Act at that stage. In support of that, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Aruppukottai Dravida Munnetra Kazhagani v.

M. Periaswami and Anr. 1974 T.L.N.J. 247. On the basis of the above contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order

of the learned Rent Controller is liable to be set aside.

Learned Counsel appearing for the landlords/respondents 1 to 4 herein, contending contra, submitted that the application for impleading the

respondents 5 to 8 herein as respondents in the eviction petition became necessary on account of the objection raised by the petitioner herein in the

counter filed in the eviction petition. According to him, though strictly Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC may not be applicable, the principle of it will

apply and, therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller is right.

I have considered the rival submissions, It is true that the petition filed by the landlords was one for adding respondents 2 to 5 as party

respondents in the eviction petition. It is also true that they have cited Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the CPC read along with the provisions

of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 in support of that application. The correct position seems to be as follows:

Even though the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court, it cannot be denied that it is a Tribunal discharging judicial functions and deciding a lis

between the tenant and the landlord after hearing both sides. It cannot also be disputed that the term ""tenant"" as defined in Section 2(8) of the

Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 will include the legal representative of a deceased tenant. When the landlords filed the eviction petition, they might

have filed the same against the petitioner herein alone under the impression that he represents his brothers as well. When the petitioner took up a

stand in his counter that his brothers are also necessary parties, the landlords have filed the application for adding them as party respondents. In

this connection, it is relevant to note that Rule 3 read with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules enjoins the

petitioner in rent control proceedings to give all particulars contemplated under Rule 3 in the application. One such particular is the name of the

tenant and other particular. If, by a bonafide mistake, all the particulars are not furnished at the time of the filing of the petition, that does not mean

that the correct particulars cannot be furnished at a later stage during the pendency of the petition. In this case, by adding the brothers of the

petitioner herein as party respondents, it would amount to giving full particulars and the effect of it will be only amending the cause title. It is not

disputed by the petitioner, and as a matter of fact, it was he who pointed out that after the death of his father and mother, himself and his four

brothers are the tenants. On coming to know of that, the landlords have filed the petition to add the brothers of the petitioner herein as party

respondents. This cannot be strictly called as impleading new parties under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. As per a Division

Bench judgment of this Court in S.N. Komaraswami Gounder, In re., (1951) 1 M.L.J. 422, the learned Rent Controller can permit amendment or

rectification of particulars already furnished in the petition. In the Division Bench case, the Court permitted correction of door number at the

appellate stage. In this case, as pointed out earlier, what has been done is only correction of particulars already furnished, namely, giving the names

of all the tenants. Therefore, I am of the view that the order impugned in this civil revision petition does not call for any interference. The decision

relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be distinguished on facts. In that case, a third party wanted to get himself impleaded as the

second petitioner in the main petition by invoking Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. That was allowed by the Rent Controller. But,

on revision, S. Natarajan, J., as he then was, held that the third party is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the CPC and obtain recognition

from the Rent Controller to step into the shoes of the first petitioner and continue the proceedings against the tenant. But the facts of the present

case, as noticed above, are entirely different. Therefore, I sustain the order of the learned Rent Controller though for different reasons.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.