The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to allow the amendment of an eviction petition under specific legal provisions.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the landlord is directed againstthe judgment dated 23/11/1978 passed by the Rent Control Tribunalwhereby the eviction order was set aside and the appeal of the tenant wasallowed in part.

( 2 ) IN the original petition for eviction, the eviction was sought onthe ground that the appellant had no suitable accommodation and he had alsoto marry his son for whom there was not enough accommodation in thepremises. During the course of arguments in this appeal, the learned counselfor the appellant has filed an application being CM 836 of 1987 under Order 6rule 5 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment ofthe eviction petition. By this application, the appellant wishes to bring onrecord certain additional facts. Some of the facts have arisen subsequent tothe filing of the original petition and some facts now sought to be raised wereexisting even at the time of original petition, However, these grounds andfacts were not raised in the petition. After hearing the learned counsel forthe parties, I am inclined to allow this application to the extent of amendingthe petition under section 14 (l) (e) and not making a new petition undersection 14 (1) (h ). The new facts which have been brought in this applicationare regarding the insufficiency of accommodation and the ill-health of theappellant. It has also been pleaded that the appellant is owner of l/5th of theproperty and has thus only three rooms available to him on the first floor anda barsati on the 2nd floor. In the application it has been mentioned that theother co-owners are his brothers and sisters.

( 3 ) IN reply to the application, the ownership of the premises by fiveco-owners has not been admitted, particulary, in view of the admission of theappellant in his statement made before the Rent Controller. It will be forthe appellant to meet that admission since the case is. being sent back forretrial.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the applicationbeing CM 836 of 1987 for amendment of the original petition is allowed asfar as it relates to the pleas available to the appellant under section 14 (1) (e ). The paragraphs relating to the respondent having acquired alternateaccommodation will not be taken into consideration. The appellantwill file amended petition before the Rent Controller on the next date ofhearing. The Rent Controller will either keep the case with himself orassign it to any Additional Rent Controller who will try and dispose of theentire matter after giving opportunity to the parties to lead such evidenceas they wish within a peroid of 8 months but not later than one year from thenext date of hearing. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the caseis sent back to the Rent Controller for fresh trial after the amended petitionin filed. Opportunity will be given to the respondent to die the amended writtenstatement. Mr. Arun Mohan, the learned, counsel for the appellant, states thathe should also be allowed to raise the question of pollution and congestion ofthe locality in which the appellant, at present, is staying. This gound willbe covered by section 14 (l) (e) for which he had already been permitted. Theparties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on the 20th of April,1987. The records be sent back forthwith.