Point of Law: Power of RCC under 23(1)(j) of Act to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings will include power to amend R.C.P.

ORDER :

[C.S. Sudha, J.]

1. What is the extent or scope of power of the Rent Control Court in the matter of amendment of a rent control petition vis-à-vis Section 23 (i) (j) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act)? Is the power of amendment confined to mere ‘errors’ or ‘omissions? Can not amendments, which go beyond the scope of ‘errors’ or ‘omissions, be allowed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151 or Order VI Rule 17? Does Section 23 (i) (j) place any embargo on the powers of the Rent Control Court in the matter, as argued persuasively on behalf of the tenant? Is the position still res integra? We proceed to examine the same.

2. This rent control revision under Section 20 Act, has been filed against the judgment dated 13/08/2019 in R.C.A.No.15/2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Kottayam, which appeal is against the order dated 16/02/2018 in R.C.P.24/2015 on the file of Rent Control Court (RCC), Changanacherry. The revision petitioner herein, is the appellant in the appeal and the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. The respondent herein, is the respondent in the appeal and the petitioner-landlord in the R.C.P. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

3. R.C.P.No.24/2015 was filed by the petitioner-landlord claiming eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the petitioner, he is the landlord of the petition schedule building which has been let out to the respondent in which he is conducting a business in the name and style 'Urvashy Stores'. The monthly rent of the building is Rs.1,250/-. The petitioner is an employee in the State Bank of Travancore and his son, John Thomas is a final year B.Tech (Mechanical) student. The petitioner's son is dependent on him. The petition schedule building is an extremely old one. The residential building of the petitioner is also situated in the same property. Both the buildings are in a dilapidated condition and a portion of the same has already collapsed. The buildings badly require to be reconstructed. The petitioner intends to start a business in the sale and service of agricultural implements and allied articles for his son. The said business requires a show room for exhibiting the various implements, a godown and space for servicing. The petition schedule building is situated in an ideal locality for the said business. The petitioner has sufficient means for starting the proposed business. The petitioner also intends to join the business of his son after his retirement. The plan of the building has been prepared in such a way as to use a portion of the proposed building for residential purpose of the petitioner and his family and the remaining portion, for running the business. The space where the schedule building is situated has to be left as a vacant space under the Building Rules. The said area is intended to be used as a parking area for the proposed business. The petitioner has no other building(s) in his possession for starting the proposed business and hence he bona fide requires vacant possession of the schedule building. It is also alleged that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3).

4. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter denying the allegations in the R.C.P. He denied the need alleged and contended that it is a mere ruse for eviction. The petitioner is in possession of other buildings which can be used for the proposed business. He also claimed the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3)

5. As per order dated 10.03.2017 in I.A.No.546/2017, the R.C.P. was mended. As per the amended R.C.P., it is alleged that after the institution of the R.C.P, the petitioner had demolished his residential building and started construction of the proposed building. Then, the contractor who undertook the work informed him that the total cost of the construction would cross Rs.1crore, though the estimate was f