Rent Controller competent to allow amendment of petition for eviction.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22. 1997 in R.C.A. No.1300 of 1996 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 19. 1996 in M.P. No.331 of 1996 in R.C.O.P. No.2904 of 1995.

2. The respondent in this Court is the landlord. He filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.2904 of 1995 for eviction of the tenant under Secs.10(2)(i), 10(2Xii)(b)and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 amended by Act 23 of 1973. During the pendency of R.C.O.P. No.2904 of 1995, he filed M.P. No.331 of 1996 for amendment. The amendment sought for reads that in the place of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) mentioned in the petition, Sec.10(3-A) (a) (i) should, be added. According to him, the provision of law in the petition has been typed inadvertantly due to typographical error and a wrong section has been mentioned in the petition. Since he is a retired army person, he is entitled to take advantage of the Sec.10(3-A) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

3. The petitioner/ tenant filed a detailed counter stating that the petition for amendment is not maintainable. Serious prejudice would be caused, if the amendment was allowed. After hearing the both counsel, the Rent Controller allowed the petition holding that there were justifiable reasons for amendment. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No.1300 of 1996. The learned Appellate Authority also held that there was justification for amendment and he confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. As against the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the present revision petition is filed by the tenant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since there is no provision for amendment the petition for amendment is not maintainable. He contended that the respondent is not a retired army person since he has re-appointment. He also contended that even if Sec.10(3-A)(a)(i) is available he is not entitled to the other benefit of the earlier disposal under Sec.10(3-A) (b). He. further referred to the case in Mohamed Gani v. Rajamani, (1996)1 M.L.J, 364 and sought to distinguish the decision. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has held that there is no provision in the Rent Control Act for permitting the amendment of the pleadings. But on account of the subsequent event the amendment was necessitated. Hence the learned Judge permitted the amendment. But, in this case there is no question of subsequent event and hence the amendment should not be allowed. Even though an observation is made to the effect that the Rent Control Act of Tamil Nadu which is silent about the power of the Rent Controller to allow amendment of petition for eviction, the learned Judge permitted the amendment.

5. In G.Jayapandian v. P.C. Manickam, (1996)1 M.L.J. 350, another learned judge of this Court reviewed the power of the rent controller. In paragraph 14, the learned Judge has stated as follows:

"When the Act or Rule confers certain powers on the authorities concerned, it does not follow that those are the only powers that could be exercised by them. It cannot be expected that the powers exercised by the tribunals should always be enumerated. All future contingencies cannot be exhausted while drafting a statute or rule. It is in that view, we have to consider whether a tribunal can exercise a power which is not specifically excluded. When a tribunal is more or less a court and is discharging judicial functions, even though it is a creature of a statute, unless it is specifically prohibited, we have to presume that the tribunal also will have the same powers as a court, and it can discharge those functions as well."

After referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Court and the other High Courts, the learned judge felt that the amendment sought for is to avoid multiplicity of litigation, hence he allowed the amend-ment. I am in full agreement with the view of