The court clarified the jurisdiction to allow amendment of the rent control petition, the retrospective application of statutory amendments, and the burden of proof for eviction grounds.

1. The 1st respondent landlord of a building filed an application under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for evicting the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and that he required the building bona fide for his own occupation. Later two more grounds were added by way of amendment, namely, that the petitioner is in possession of another building sufficient for carrying on his business and that he sub-let the building to the 2nd respondent without the consent of the landlord. The petitioner denied all the grounds raised by the landlord. The Rent Control Court negatived the contention of the landlord that the petitioner is in arrears of rent and that the landlord required the building for his own occupation bona fide. Nevertheless, that court found that the additional grounds urged by way of amendment, namely, that the petitioner sub-let the building and that he is in occupation of another room sufficient for his purpose have been made out and accordingly ordered eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda). Pending the appeal the Act was amended (Act 2 of 1973) by incorporating a proviso to S.11 (4) (i) which is in the following terms:

"Provided that an application under this clause shall not be made for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy unless the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and the tenant has failed to terminate the transfer or the sub-lease as the case may be. within thirty days of of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof."

The learned Sub Judge applied this proviso and having found that the landlord failed to issue a registered notice held that he is not entitled to eviction on the ground of subletting, However, the order of eviction was confirmed holding that the petitioner is in possession of a room nearby sufficient for his purpose as contemplated in S.11(4) (iii) of the Act. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District Court and that court concurred with the subordinate authorities in holding that the petitioner has another shop room in the same locality sufficient for his purpose. That court also found that the amendment to the Rent Control Act made by Act 2 of 1973 has no retrospective operation and hence reversed the finding of the Sub Judge as to the sub-letting. According by the revision petition was dismissed. The present revision petition is filed under S.115, C.P.C., in these circumstances.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Rent Control Court and the other authorities under the Act erred in deciding the case on the additional grounds raised by the landlord by way of amendment to the rent control petition. According to her, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the rent control petition and in support of that relied on the decision of Mathew J. (as he then was) in Lalitha v. Lakshmi Bai (1967 KLT 182). Before I refer to this decision it will be useful to read S.23(1) 0) of the Act which is in the following terms:

"23. Summons, etc. (1) 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 a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:

(j) power to amend any defector error in orders or proceedings;"'

This statutory provision enables the Rent Control Court to allow amendment of orders and proceedings if there is any defect or error in them. Rent Control petition is part of the 'proceeding.' Black's Law Dictionary defines 'proceeding' thus:

"Any application to a Court of justice however for aid in the enforcement of rights, for relief, for redress of injuries, for damages or for any remedial object."

Stroud also points out that the word 'proceeding' may mean acco