An order allowing amendment of pleadings by an appellate authority under the Rent Control Act is not revisable by the High Court under Section 22 of the Act or under Section 115 CPC. Subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief can be taken into account by the court, even if they occur after the commencement of the lis.

V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE five Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders in LA. No. 210 of 1995 in R. C. A. No. 108 of 1988, LA. No. 208 of 1995 in R. C. A. No. 107 of 1988, LA. No. 206 of 1995 in R. C. A. No. 106 of 1988, la, No. 212 of 1995 in R. C. A. No. 109 of 1988 and LA. No. 214 of 1995 in R. C. A. No. 110 of 1988, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, vizianagaram, dated 20-1-1997 allowing the amendment of pleadings under Order VI rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure read with rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. Since common questions of law and fact are involved they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3, who are the landlords, filed eviction petitions against five different tenants, who are the revision petitioners herein, contending that they purchased the building consisting of several portions which are in occupation of the aforesaid tenants by a registered sale deed dated 7-12-1984 as members of Joint Hindu family. The eviction petitions were dismissed by the Rent Controller, vizianagaram. Hence, they preferred five appeals namely R. C. A. Nos. 108, 107,106, 109 and 110 of 1988. The parties will be referred to as appellants-landlords and tenants.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the appeals,one of them (appellant-landlord No. 2) filed o. S. No. 21 of 1994 for partition of all the joint Hindu family properties including the demised building and later they entered into a compromise under which that building fell to the share of two of them namely, appellants-landlord Nos. 2 and 3. The suit was dismissed in terms of the compromise. It is their case that they became entitled to evict the tenants on the grounds already pleaded in the eviction petitions. Hence, they sought for amendment of pleadings in all the eviction petitions to the effect that (i) appellant- landlord No. 1 ceased to have any right, title or interest in the demised building; (ii) that the remaining landlords are alone entitled to the said building and the same is also mutated in the municipal records in their names; (iii) that they have no other building in Vizianagaram Municipality and hence they require not only for their residence, but also for their business and profession and for that they intimated the tenants that the building fell to their share in the partition and that they require the same bona fide for their personal use and occupation by means of registered Notice dated 5-10-1994 and (iv) that they are therefore entitled to evict the tenants. The affidavits of appellant landlord no. 2 are filed in support of the petitions to the above effect.

( 4 ) THE revision petitioners-tenants resisted the petitions contending that the averment that the joint family purchased the building in question by registered sale deed dated 7-12-1984 is not admitted and that the averments that a suit O. S. No. 21 of 1994 was filed for partition of all the joint family properties, including the demised building and that they partitioned the same and also that the said building fell to the share of landlords Nos. 2 and 3 under a compromise dated 31-1-1995 are not binding upon them. It is added that any such suit or compromise is only a make believe transaction and it is a collusive one. It is also averred that the alleged grounds mentioned in the amendment petition give rise to a fresh cause of action and hence the same cannot be sought to be introduced by way of amendment. Then all the additional grounds sought to be introduced have been specifically denied and they are said to be factually incorrect.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge considered the rival contentions and held that Order VI Rule 17 CPC is very wide and that the Court can allow amendment of pleadings even at this stage for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy if it does not cause prejudice to the other side, following a judgment of this court in M. Naresh Kumar Reddy vs. N. Ramanamma, It is further held that the proposed amendments

Click Here to Read the rest of this document