Subsequent events to be taken note of.

The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.3163 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. Theeviction petition is filed by Ciscons Builders and Engineers represented by partner G.Karnani through power of Attorney Agent Wilfred Harding. In that eviction petition, it was alleged contended that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents from May, 1989 to August, 1989 amounting to Rs.18,025. Before initiating proceedings, a legal notice was also issued informing the tenant that he has not paid the rent.

3. In the counter-statement filed by the tenant, he admitted that he is a tenant and the monthly rent is Rs.5,175. He also contended that he has paid Rs.50,000 as advance and the same could be adjusted as and when the rent becomes due. On 27. 1990. M/s.Ciscons Builders and Engineers filed M.P.No.554 of 1990 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as Act. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that an amount of Rs.72,450 is due from the tenant and after adjusting the advance of Rs.50,000 a sum of Rs.22,450 is still payable by the tenant. That amount was deposited into court by the tenant.

4. Thereafter, M/s.Ciscons Builders and Engineers again filed M.P.No.470 of 1991 alleging that the tenant has further committed default in payment of rent from November, 1990 to May, 1991 and they are also entitled to advance of two months rent, totalling to Rs.46,575. That application was filed on 16. 1991. For the first time, the tenant took an objection contending that the application under Sec.11(4) of the Act is liable to be dismissed since M/s.Ciscons Builders and Engineers are not the landlords and he is a tenant only under Master Sharan G.Karnani, who is a minor. He also contended that the lease deed was executed by Govind G.Karnani as guardian of the minor son. The person who has filed the eviction petition is not the landlord. He prayed for dismissal of the application. Thereafter, he also filed an application to receive additional counter statement on 29. 1991.

5. Onfiling the additional statement M/s.Ciscons Builders and Engineers moved M.P.No.816 of 1991 seeking to amend the rent control application. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, they stated that the person who filed the petition was all along dealing with the tenant and he was collecting the rent and depositing the rent in the name of the minor. By mistake, M/s.Ciscons Builders and Engineers were named as petitioner and really the person who is ought to be impleaded as petitioner is Sharan G.Karnani represented by his father. The said application was seriously opposed by the tenant.

6. The Rent Controller as per order dated 1. 1992 allowed the application. The Rent Controller found that since the petitioner was collecting rent from the respondent, his capacity as power of Attorney Agent of Govind G.Karnani, father and natural grand-father of Master Sharan G.Karnani, the tenant will not be in any way prejudiced on account of the amendment and the same was allowed. Though an appeal was taken, the same was not successful and finally the tenant filed C.R.P.Nos.58 and 59 of 1995 before this Court. On 1. 1995. His Lordship Justice Shivappa disposes of the C.R.Ps. dismissing the same. It is better to extract the order of the learned Judge, which reads thus:

“The two revision petition are filed to set aside the order of the lower appellate court. Keeping in view the admission made by the petitioner herein that the rent has been paid to the respondent/landlord, both the courts concurrently allowed the amendment. The question that the court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment may be urged at the time of argument of the main matter. I see no infirmity in the findings of both the courts. Therefore, these revision petitions deserve dismissal even at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, both the revision p