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