Interference by High Court not required in the just and legal order of Rent Controller.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1982, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif’s Court), Palani, is the revision petitioner.

2. These revisions have been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

3. In the above R.C.O.P. the order of eviction has become final. When the matter was taken in execution, the Amin reported that he could not identify the building in view of the vague description. Landlord filed an application before the executing court, to give better particulars regarding the building. He filed I.A.No.30 of 1996 for correction of description of proeprty.

4. When I.A.No.30 of 1996 was filed, tenant took a contention that mere narration of boundaries will not be sufficient. Little more detailed description with side measurements is required without which the property cannot be identified. When such a contention was taken, on the basis of the Commissioner’s Report prepared during trial of the R.C.O.P, I.A.No.6 of 1997 in I.A.NO.30 of 1996 was filed by the landlord, for giving a better description of the property. The same was also objected by the tenant for the very same reason.

.5. The same was seriously opposed by the tenant on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to correct or amend the Schedule and the power is within the four corners of the Statute, which does., not permit any amendment. It was further contended that since the original petition itself has been disposed of, the same cannot be corrected. It is further said that even during trial of the R.C.O.P., tenant contended that the description of property is vague, and the correction should have been done during trial itself. An opportunity which was available to him during trial is now taken away. According to him, the very description of the property will change if the amendment is allowed.

6. By the impugned order, the Rent Controller allowed both the Interlocutory Applications and permitted the landlord to correct the schedule of property. While holding so, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there is no change in the property. It is only a better description that is being given and the tenant is aware as to the property in which he is in possession. An accidental mistake or omission should not be a reason for dismissing a genuine application, if interest of justice warrants such a correction. It also came to the conclusion that the Rent Controller has got jurisdiction to allow the amendment.

7. When the matter came for admission, since respondent had already entered caveat, learned counsel on both sides were heard. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the same contentions that were urged before the Rent Controller, and he also relied on the decisions reported in V.Munisami Naidu v. A.Kasim Khan, (1971)2 M.L.J. 379: 84 L.W. 521 and Rukmini Devi v. Paswan Kumar Gupta, A.I.R. 1979 Pat. 88.

8. How far those decisions are relevant and applicable to the facts of this case will be considered later.

9. Since the power that is sought to be invoked in these revision petitions is under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, unless there is manifest injustice, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, I do not think that I will be justified in interfering with the impugned orders.

10. If an order has been passed in the interest of justice, and at the same time no injustice is done to the petitioner herein, my hands are tied from probing further into the matter. This Court is not exercising the power of appeal, after re-appreciation of evidence.

.11. It is not disputed that the revision petitioner is a tenant of the building bearing Door No. 18-A. Regarding the same, there is no amendment sought for. It is only regarding the location of that door number, further particulars are required. It may also be noted that in the description of property, originally it is said that it is situated in Palani Town, Ward No.3, Block No. 12, T.S.No.771, bearing Door No. 18-A Tenant has no case that he is