Amendment in eviction petition can be done by Rent Controller.

The tenant in R.C.O.P. No.4 of 1981, on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, is the revision petitioner herein. The revision is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Eviction was sought by the landlord, first respondent herein, on the ground that he requires the building for his own occupation. The tenant denied title of the landlord and claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act. He wanted that the matter should be heard at the preliminary stage itself. The Rent Controller found the point in his favour. But in the subsequent stages, namely, appeal and revision, and ultimately, in the Supreme Court it was held that the relationship between the revision petitioner herein and the first respondent is that of tenant and landlord, coming with the provisions of Rent Control Act.

3. Thereafter, the landlord, first respondent herein, filed LA. No.32 of 1993 seeking permission to incorporate certain amendments in the petition for eviction. The amendments proposed were, that since the tenant denied the landlord’s title without any good faith, he is liable to be evicted, and further, the landlord wanted to add one more paragraph explaining the reason why he wanted the building in question for his own occupation.

4. The same was objected by the tenant.

5. The Rent Controller allowed the application. It is against that order, the present revision is filed, under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Since the landlord (first respondent herein) had entered appearance by filing caveat, his counsel was also heard at the time of admission itself.

7. The only point urged by learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that being a functionary under a Statute, Rent Controller has no power to allow the amendment application, and O.6, Rule 17, C.P.C. has no application, and that by allowing the amendment, the Rent Controller has acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in him.

8. I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is true that the Rent Controller has to function within the four corners of the Statute and that it is a tribunal.

9. In the decision reported in (Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma and others, A.I.R. 1965 S.C 1595: (1964-65)27 F.J.R. 204: (1965)1 S.C.A. 723: (1965)1 Lab.L.J. 428: (1965)11 Fac.L.R. 77, their Lordship considered the distinction between a court and a Tribunal. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said decision are relevant for our purpose, and they read thus:

"...The expression "court" in the context denotes a tribunal constituted by the State as apart of the ordinary hierarchy of courts which are invested with the State’s inherent judicial powers. A sovereign State discharges legislative, executive and judicial functions and can legitimately claim corresponding powers which are described as legislative, executive and judicial powers. Under our Constitution, the judicial functions and powers of the State are primarily conferred on the ordinary courts which have been constituted under its relevant provisions. The Constitution recognised a hierarchy of courts and to their adjudication are normally entrusted all disputes between citizens and citizens as well as between the citizens and the State. These courts can be described as ordinary courts of civil judicature. They are governed by their prescribed rules of procedure and they deal with questions of fact and law raised before them adopting a process which is described as judicial process. The powers which these courts exercise, are judicial powers, the functions they discharge are judicial functions and the decisions they reach and pronounce are judicial decisions. In every State there are administrative bodies or authorities which are required to deal with matters within their jurisdiction in an administrative manner and their decisions are described as administrative decisions. In reaching their administrative decisions, administrative bodies can and of