S.Jethu Singh v. K.M.Allaudin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.10.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN CRP No.4108 of 2024 & CMP.No.22571 of 2024 S.Jethu Singh : Petitioner versus K.M.Allaudhin : Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.07.2024 passed in MP.No.3 of 2023 in RLTOP.No.120 of 2020 on the file of the XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukund, Senior Counsel, for Mr.N.Paul Sunder Singh

ORDER

This civil revision petitioner has been arrayed as a tenant in RLTOP.No.120 of 2020. The landlord originally filed the said petition under

Sections 21(2)(c), 21(2)(d) and 21(2)(e) of Act.

2. Pending the litigation, as the grace period of 575 days had expired and since no agreement was entered into between the tenant and the landlord as required under Section 4(2) of the said Act, the landlord moved an application for Amendment. In the amendment application, the landlord sought to introduce paragraph 9(a) to the petition pleading that the alleged tenant is liable to be evicted even under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.

3. A detailed counter was filed to the said application by the alleged tenant. He pleads that he is in possession of the property as an agreement holder and that, he has presented a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in O.S.No.8677 of 2022 before the City Civil Court at Chennai. He added that the amendment, if allowed, would be a new case pleaded by the landlord and therefore, sought for dismissal of the said petition.

4. The learned Rent Controller, considering the affidavit and counter,

allowed the amendment application permitting the landlord to raise an additional ground under Section 21(2)(a) of the said Act.

5. An amendment application can be allowed, if it does not change the basic frame work of the proceeding. The grace period of 575 days granted from the date of notification of the Rent Control Act has expired pending the RLTOP proceeding. In fact, the landlord could have filed a fresh petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the said legislation. The purpose of allowing an amendment application is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

6. The plea of Mr.S.Mukund that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant would still be open to the civil revision petitioner to be raised at the time of trial. In fact, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee in J.Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah, (2022) 6 Mad LJ 271 has held that where there is a denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the court should normally grant a right to the tenant to let in evidence in order to substantiate his case.

7. As the amendment does not change the basic framework of the proceeding, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Rent Controller. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14.10.2024 nl Index : Yes/No Speaking Orders/Non Speaking orders : Yes/No

To The XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

nl 14.10.2024