J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The petitioners herein, being the petitioners in RCP

7/2011, are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court, rejecting the application for amendment of the eviction petition. The main reason pointed out by the court below for rejecting the application is that the said application was filed after the closure of the evidence of the landlords. Further, it is pointed out therein that in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others[(2012) 2 SCC 300] also, the application cannot be entertained.

2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.Babu Paul and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.Jacob P. Alex. Sri. Babu Paul submitted that the amendment was required in the light of the amendment allowed by the very same court after the evidence of the landlords was over, permitting the tenant to add some more paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs 28A to 28D. It is therefore submitted that this is not a case where the law laid down in the decision in J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others[(2012) 2 SCC 300], is applicable. More importantly, t