The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 and the court has the power of review.

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. The landlord is the petitioner herein, who filed a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, asking for additional accommodation. He filed I. A. No. 287 of 1979 for amending the petition by stating that due to typographical error, Door No 16, Manjanakara Street, was not mentioned and Door No. 51, Mahal Street, Madurai, alone was mentioned, but the description of the property in the petition would necessarily include both the door numbers.

2. Both the authorities held that (sic) description in the petition would necessarily include both the door numbers (sic) no prejudice could be caused to the tenant by allowing the amendment, because he has already raised his defence in respect of the entire premises leased to him, he being the tenant of both the door numbers. It is a corner building in which, in the major portion, the landlord is carrying on his business. Door No. 16, faces Manjanakara Street, whereas door No. 51 faces Mahal Sixth Street, Madurai.

3. Aggrieved against this order, C. R. P. No. 2612 of 1979 was filed contending that an amendment cannot be allowed and there is no jurisdiction in the authorities to allow such amendments. Counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the decision reported in Ramachandracharyulu v. Rangacharyalu (1926) 51 M. L. J. 418 : A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 1117 was able to convince this Court that the proposed amendment could be allowed. But during the course of hearing, the counsel for the tenant pleaded that it Is not a genuine omission, but knowingly the petition had been filed only for one of the door numbers, and each one of the premises is covered by a separate lease deed and rent was also being paid separately. He relied upon Exhibits B-3 and B-4 to contend that till 1974, rent was being paid separately, and in the manner in which the point is put in the Civil Revision Petition, it was never canvassed before the authorities, and therefore, it will be possible to the tenant to establish that there are two distinctive tenancies, and by amending the petition, he cannot secure additional accommodation in respect of two premises. It is to find out these factual particulars, this matter was remanded, and while so remanding this Court directed that in the event of two separate tenancies being made out, the landlord will have to fits two separate petitions, and he cannot get over this aspect by seeking to amend the petition, and if it is held that it is a common tenancy and entire rent was being paid in lump sum, it will be treated as one lease transaction and then the proposed amendment may be allowed.

4. This review petition is filed by the landlord stating that, there is no need for remand, and even if there are two tenancies, a single petition is maintainable, in view of the Division Beach decision in R. Venkatesachary v. The Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (1949) 2 M. L. J. 784 : A. I. R. 1950 Mad. 366 and when such is the position, the amendment, as proposed, cannot be considered as prejudicial to the interests of the tenant or contrary to law. It is also claimed that there is no need to file two separate petitions, and therefore the remand made is unnecessary and hence the order requires to be reviewed. This petition is filed by invoking the provisions of Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant contended that when there are two tenancies, two separate petitions, will have to be filed because each one is a 'building' within the meaning of Act XVIII of 1960 and when additional accommodation is sought for, it has to be established by the landlord that both the premises are required for his occupation and it cannot be done by filing one petition, and hence the order of remand does not call for any interference.

6. Mr. T.R. Mani, counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, apart from the decision above referred to also relies upon the decision