Amendments to eviction petitions under rent control laws are permissible at any stage of proceedings when necessary to achieve justice.

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the tenant in RCP No.16 of 2020 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Parappanangadi, seeking to challenge Ext.P5 order dated 26.11.2025 in an interlocutory application filed by the landlord permitting amendment of the rent control petition.

2. The respondent-landlord had filed the rent control petition as above, pointing out that she had let out the petition schedule room to the petitioner/tenant for running a business and alleging that the rent is not being paid and hence seeking eviction under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the ‘Act’). The eviction sought for was contested by the petitioner herein. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the respondent/landlord instituted I.A. No.16 of 2025 in RCP No.16 of 2020 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to amend the eviction petition pointing out that the tenant has obtained another shop room in the same Municipality where the petition schedule shop room is situated, which was suitable for running his business. In the petition seeking amendment, the landlord further contended specifically that the afore aspect came to her knowledge only recently and therefore, the amendment requires to be permitted.

3. The petitioner tenant objected to the amendment application, essentially contending that the stand taken in the application that the landlord came to know of the subsequent development only recently was false. By Ext.P5 order, the Rent Control Court has allowed the application for amendment. It is seeking to challenge the afore that this Original Petition is filed by the tenant.

4. Heard Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.Jamaludeen, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the amendment ought not to have been allowed since it is after the commencement of the trial and after the landlord’s evidence that the landlord sought the amendment. He would also contend that the additional shop room pointed out in the amendment application is not a suitable one for carrying on the business of the petitioner.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord would contend that the subsequent events, like the one noticed above, could be brought on record through an amendment, relying on the judgment of this Court in Korah Abraham v.

Varughis [2004 (2) KLT 192].

7. We have considered the rival contentions and connected records.

8. The short issue arising for consideration is as to the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court. As already noticed, the landlord sought eviction under the provisions of Section 11(2) (b) and (3) of the Act.

The amendment was sought to point out that the tenant obtained another shop room in the same locality, which would be suitable for conducting his business. As already noticed, in the application seeking amendment, it has been specifically pointed out that this subsequent development came to the knowledge of the landlord only quite recently. In the objection filed to the petition seeking amendment, the tenant has stated that this room would not be “reasonably sufficient” for carrying out his business. The tenant also contended that the landlord has not exercised due diligence and, therefore, the prayer for amendment is only for harassing the tenant.

9. We notice that the landlord has also relied on the license obtained from the local authority with respect to the shop room subsequently obtained by the tenant. This certificate itself is dated 01.09.2025, and therefore, the stand of the landlord that he came to know about the subsequent development only later has to be accepted. This Court in Benjeena v. Pappachan [2024 KLT Online 1668] has already held that the amendment could be permitted at any