9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Rent Controller has the power to allow amendments to the eviction petition. 2. Whether the proposed amendments by the landlord were justified and necessary. 3. Whether the Rent Controller acted beyond his jurisdiction in allowing the amendments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Rent Controller has the power to allow amendments to the eviction petition: The primary contention by the revision petitioner (tenant) was that the Rent Controller, being a statutory functionary, lacked the power to allow the amendment application, arguing that Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. did not apply. The court disagreed, highlighting that tribunals, although creatures of statutes, possess inherent powers necessary for the administration of justice unless specifically prohibited. The judgment referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in *Associated Cement Co. Limited v. P.N. Sharma and Ors.*, which clarified the distinction between courts and tribunals, emphasizing that tribunals share judicial functions with courts. Additionally, the court cited *Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi* and *Mst. Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari Sharma and Ors.*, reinforcing that statutory bodies possess implied powers to ensure the effectiveness of their statutory functions. 2. Whether the proposed amendments by the landlord were justified and necessary: The landlord sought to amend the eviction petition to include the tenant's denial of the landlord's title as a ground for eviction and to elaborate on the bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The court found that such amendments were necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to clarify the issues at hand. The court referenced *Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao*, affirming that denial of title, even if raised in the written statement, can be a ground for eviction. The court opined that the amendments did not introduce inconsistent or new pleas but rather provided necessary explanations to the existing claims, thus aiding in the just resolution of the dispute. 3. Whether the Rent Controller acted beyond his jurisdiction in allowing the amendments: The revision petitioner's argument that the Rent Controller exceeded his jurisdiction was dismissed. The court emphasized that the Rent Controller's decision to allow the amendments was within his jurisdiction and aimed at serving the interests of justice. The court reiterated that statutory tribunals, like the Rent Controller, are vested with inherent powers to ensure fair adjudication and that such powers include allowing amendments to pleadings when necessary. The judgment underscored that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could only be invoked if the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, which was not the case here. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the tenant. The Rent Controller's decision to allow the amendments was upheld, ensuring that the eviction petition could proceed with the necessary clarifications. The court also directed the Rent Controller to expedite the disposal of the eviction petition, acknowledging the undue delay in the proceedings. The judgment reinforced the principle that tribunals, while bound by statutory provisions, possess inherent powers to administer justice effectively.
|
