1. Second respondent herein (landlord) on 27-5-1982 filed RCP. 10/1982 before the Rent Controller, Taliparamba for eviction of the petitioner herein (tenant) under S.11(2) (b) and (3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the Act') alleging that the tenant has kept rent in arrears and the landlord bona fide needs the building for the occupation of his dependant son who needs the same for starting a business. The tenant filed a counter-statement opposing the claim. On 28-6-1982, second respondent filed IA. 539/1982 seeking to amend the RC. petition by incorporating the fact that the business to be started by his son is business in foot-wear, umbrellas, suit-case bag etc. The application was opposed but was allowed by the Rent Controller under Ext. P3 order. The legality of this order is now challenged by the tenant under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction or power to allow an amendment of the petition for eviction filed by the landlord. In this connection, reliance is placed on S.23 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of S.23 states that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority shall have the powers which are vested in the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of matters enumerated therein. Clause 0) mentions "power to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings". S.31 of the Act confers on the State Government power to make rules to carry on the purposes of the Act. The matters in regard to which rules would be framed, without prejudice to the generality of the power mentioned above, are set out in subsection (2). In 1979 rules were framed. The rules do not specifically confer any power on the Rent Controller to allow amendment of pleadings.

3. According to petitioner, the need set up by the landlord is not bona fide; if it is bona fide, the particular nature of the business intended to be commenced by his son would have been specified in the eviction petition but that had not been done It is to fill up this lacuna by mentioning the specific nature of the business that the amendment application has been filed. It is further contended that assuming that eviction petition is a proceeding within the meaning of S.23(1) 0) of the Act, this lacuna is not a defect or error in the proceedings which could be corrected by the Rent Controller.

4. There are several decisions of this Court dealing with the power of Land Tribunal under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. In Ammad Haji v. Kelu (1966 KLT. 819). Kuttappan & others . Chellamma alias Thressia & another (1973 KLT 521) and Mariamma Mathai v. Mathulla Pothen (1974 KLT. 32), learned single judges of this Court have held that Land Tribunal has no power to set aside an ex parte order; in N. Sadananda Pai & Co. v. Cannanore Municipal Council (1967 KLT. 99), a learned single judge of this Court has held that Land Tribunal has no power to restore an application dismissed by it for default; these decisions proceed on the basis that the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the rules framed thereunder do not confer any such power on the Tribunal which is a creature of the Statute and possesses only limited powers specifically conferred on it. However, a Full Bench of this Court in Kalyani Amma Bharghavi Amma v Ouseph Varkey (1967 KLT 317) took the view that such a power could be found in R.99 of the Tenancy Rules framed under the Land Reforms Act. The Court also observed that if the Land Tribunal is to be denied the power to restore an application dismissed for default on the ground that such a power had not been specifically conferred on it, it must follow that the Tribunal has no power to dismiss an application for default at all since the power to dismiss an application for default has also not been specifically conferred on