T N KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. JAGAT TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner herein, who filed a petition under section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1900, asking for additional accommodation. He filed I. A. No. 287 of 1979 for amending the petition by stating that due to typographical error. Door No 16, Manjanakara Street, was not mentioned and Door No. 5 , Mahal Street, Madurai, alone was mentioned, but the description of the property in the petition would necessarily include both the door numbers.

(2.) BOTH the authorities held that the description in the petition would necessarily include both the door numbers and no prejudice could be caused to the tenant by allowing the amendment, because he has already raised his defence in respect of the entire premises leased to him, he being the tenant of both the door numbers, It is a corner building in which, in the major portion, the landlord is carrying on his business. Door No. 16, faces Manjanakara Street, whereas door No. 51 faces Mahal Sixth Street, Madurai.

(3.) THIS review petition is filed by the landlord stating that, there is no need for remand, and even if there are two tenancies, a single petition is maintainable, in view of the Division Beach decision in R. Venkatesachary v. The Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras1, and when such is the position, the amendment, as proposed, cannot be considered as prejudicial to the interests of the tenant or contrary to law. it is also claimed that there is no need to file two separate petitions, and therefore the remand made is unnecessary and hence the order requires to be reviewed. THIS petition is filed by invoking the provisions of section 114 and Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.