Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 951
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
G. Selvam, Chennai
Versus
B. Rajalakshmi, Chennai
C.R.P (NPD) No.260 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided On : 16-03-2007
For the Petitioner:P.K. Sivasubramaniam, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Jaganathan, Advocate.
The Rent Controller has the inherent power to allow amendments to rectify mistakes made by inadvertence, as long as the amendment does not amount to a review of the adjudication already made.
Headnote:
Amendment - Rent Control - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Sections 11(3) and 11(4) - 18 - The court discussed the mistake in the description of the property and numbering of petitions, the inherent power of the Rent Controller to allow amendment, and the tenant's awareness of the property in question. Key legal provisions include the inherent power of the Rent Controller and the principle that amendments can be allowed to rectify mistakes without reviewing the adjudication already made.
Fact of the Case:
The Landlady filed eviction petitions for the Ground Floor and First Floor portions. Due to a mistake in numbering, the eviction order was passed for the wrong floor. The Landlady sought an amendment to correct the mistake, which the Tenant resisted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Controller had the inherent power to allow the amendment to rectify the mistake, and the Tenant's awareness of the property in question supported the amendment. The court confirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the Revision Petition.
Issues: The issues included the Rent Controller's power to allow an amendment after passing an eviction order, the mistake in the description of the property, and the Tenant's resistance to the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Controller has the inherent power to rectify mistakes made by inadvertence, as long as the amendment does not amount to a review of the adjudication already made. The Tenant's awareness of the property in question supported the amendment.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the amendment of the property schedule and dismissed the Revision Petition, granting three months for the Tenant to vacate the premises.
Aggrieved by allowing of Petition ordering Amendment of Schedule of Property i.e. amending "First Floor" as "Ground Floor", Tenant has preferred this Revision.
2. It is a very unfortunate case where two RCOPs were filed and inadvertent mistake crept in numbers of the RCOPs and the corresponding Schedule of petitioned property and the Tenant is trying to take advantage of that mistake. The point falling for consideration is whether Rent Controller has no powers to allow Amendment after passing order of eviction.
3. 1. For better appreciation of contentious points, we may refer to brief facts: Respondent / Landlady filed RCOP.1082/98 in respect of Ground Floor portion and RCOP.1083/98 pertaining to First Floor portion located at No.349, T.H.Road, Chennai against the Revision Petitioner on the ground of Wilful Default. As the Tenant failed to pay rental dues even after filing of Eviction Petitions, Landlady has filed Petitions under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short "the Act") in both RCOPs. M.P.No.766/99 filed in RCOP.1083/98 was allowed since the conditional order was not complied with. M.P.No.566/2000 filed in RCOP.1082/98 was dismissed. Against the order passed in M.P.No.766/99 in RCOP.1083/98, Tenant has preferred Appeal in RCA.156/2000. Against the order passed in M.P.No.566/2000 in RCOP.1082/98, Landlady has preferred Appeal in RCA.294/01. In the meantime, Tenant has surrendered possession of First Floor portion and Landlady has made an endorsement of taking possession of the said First Floor portion and consequently, RCOP.1083/98 was dismissed.
3. 2. The Appeal in RCA.294/01 was contested and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, Tenant has filed CRP.1269/02 and the said Revision was dismissed on 30.06.2005. Consequently eviction was ordered in RCOP.1082/98. When Landlady has obtained Certified Copy in RCOP.1082/98, she came to know that eviction order was passed in respect of First Floor, which was already vacated and the Eviction Petition in respect of Ground Floor portion has been wrongly assigned the number RCOP.1083/98 and whereas First Floor has been assigned the number RCOP.1082/98. Stating that only regarding Ground Floor portion, the matter was agitated upto the High Court, Landlady has filed Petition seeking Amendment of Schedule of property in RCOP.1082/98. Tenant has resisted that Petition contending that after disposal of RCOP.1082/98 on 110. 2005, Rent Controller has no power to amend the description of the property in the Schedule and the remedy of the Landlady is only to file a fresh RCOP on account of dismissal of RCOP.1083/98.
3. 3. Pointing out the mistake occurred in the description of property and in the numbering of Petitions and also observing that it is only a trivial mistake, Rent Controller allowed the Amendment Petition. Landlady was under the bonafide mistaken impression that RCOP.1082/98 has been filed for Ground Floor portion. Referring to the decision in 1996 (I) M.L.J. 350, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Rent Controller allowing Amendment Petition.
4. Challenging the order of the Authorities, learned counsel for Revision Petitioner has submitted that after disposal of RCOP, Rent Controller has become functus officio and has no power to order Amendment. Learned counsel made elaborate submissions contending that mistake in description of property is not an inadvertent mistake, but the Amendment introduces a new Statement of fact and after disposal of RCOP, the Court cannot allow such an Amendment introducing a new Statement of fact and by doing so Tenant would be subjected to great hardship.
5. Learned counsel for Landlady has submitted that the Tenant was quite aware that he is fighting out only for Ground Floor and very well knew that RCOP.1082/98 related only to Ground Floor. Placing reliance upon the decisions in A.I.R. 1951 MADRAS 766 and 1998 (I) L.W. 512, learned counsel urged that Court
