C.S.SUDHA,J. - (1.)What is the extent or scope of power of the Rent Control Court in the matter of amendment of a rent control petition vis-a-vis Sec. 23 (1) (j) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act)? Is the power of amendment confined to mere 'errors' or 'omissions? Can not amendments, which go beyond the scope of 'errors' or 'omissions, be allowed in exercise of the inherent powers under Sec. 151 or Order VI Rule 17? Does Sec. 23 (1) (j) place any embargo on the powers of the Rent Control Court in the matter, as argued persuasively on behalf of the tenant? Is the position still res integra? We proceed to examine the same.
(2.)This rent control revision under Sec. 20 Act, has been filed against the judgment dtd. 13/08/2019 in R.C.A.No.15/2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Kottayam, which appeal is against the order dtd. 16/02/2018 in R.C.P.24/2015 on the file of Rent Control Court (RCC), Changanacherry. The revision petitioner herein, is the appellant in the appeal and the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. The respondent herein, is the respondent in the appeal and the petitionerlandlord in the R.C.P. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
(3.)R.C.P.No.24/2015 was filed by the petitioner-landlord claiming eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. According to the petitioner, he is the landlord of the petition schedule building which has been let out to the respondent in which he is conducting a business in the name and style 'Urvashy Stores'. The monthly rent of the building is Rs.1,250.00. The petitioner is an employee in the State Bank of Travancore and his son, John Thomas is a final year B.Tech (Mechanical) student. The petitioner's son is dependent on him. The petition schedule building is an extremely old one. The residential building of the petitioner is also situated in the same property. Both the buildings are in a dilapidated condition and a portion of the same has already collapsed. The buildings badly require to be reconstructed. The petitioner intends to start a business in the sale and service of agricultural implements and allied articles for his son. The said business requires a show room for exhibiting the various implements, a godown and space for servicing. The petition schedule building is situated in an ideal locality for the said business. The petitioner has sufficient means for starting the proposed business. The petitioner also intends to join the business of his son after his retirement. The plan of the building has been prepared in such a way as to use a portion of the proposed building for residential purpose of the petitioner and his family and the remaining portion, for running the business. The space where the schedule building is situated has to be left as a vacant space under the Building Rules. The said area is intended to be used as a parking area for the proposed business. The petitioner has no other building(s) in his possession for starting the proposed business and hence he bona fide requires vacant possession of the schedule building. It is also alleged that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3).