B. Mani Bai vs Sohanraj Mandoth and another

The revision petitioner assails the judgment dated 8-4-1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No.388 of 1997. Revision petitioner is the appellant and he is the petitioner in RC No. 171 of 1996. He filed 1A No.686 of 1997 seeking leave of the Court to amend the petition by adding Para 7(a) and 7(b) in RC No.171 of 1996. The said application having been allowed the second respondent in the said petition filed the appeal RA No.388 of 1997. In view of the impugned order allowing the appeal the petitioner approached this Court in revision. 2. The facts lie in narrow compass. As aforesaid the revision petitioner filed RC No.171 of 1996 against the first respondent herein seeking eviction of the premise that tenant committed default in paying the rents. The second respondent herein filed IA No.311 of 1997 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC seeking to come on record on the premise that he is the tenant. The said application was resisted. However, on merits that application was allowed and the second respondent herein was permitted to come on record as the second respondent in RC No.171 of 1996.

Obviously, the second respondent has been impleaded not at the instance of the petitioner herein but he has come on record on his own accord. Thereby it necessitated the petitioner to state his case as against the second respondent who claims to have been the tenant himself while denying the tenancy of the first respondent.

In such circumstances in ordinary course the petitioner shall be permitted to file his own plea is the original petition in RC No.171 of 1996 has been filed seeking eviction of the first respondent on the premise that he was the tenant. Whether it in the nature of the rejoinder or by means of amendment by adding parties he shall have to be permitted to state his own case as against the second respondent. The petitioner therefore seeks to amend the petition on the assumption that it is a consequential amendment. Be that as it may, as aforesaid the petitioner shall have to be permitted to state his case against the second respondent. In that view of the matter it cannot also be said that it is a new plea that has been taken as against the second respondent. The amendment is necessitated as aforesaid consequent upon the second respondent coming on record on his own accord. If the amendment petition is not allowed there remains no case of the petitioner as against the second respondent and the petitioner cannot be prevented from stating his own case as against the second respondent who has come on record as against the will of the petitioner. That will create an anomalous situation and cause any amount of hardship to the petitioner. The interests of justice therefore warrant the amendment petition to be allowed. In that view of the matter the order of the Appellate Court is unsustainable under law. I therefore see no illegality or material irregularity that has been committed by the learned Rent Controller which warrants interference by the Appellate Court. The second respondent appears to have not yet filed his counter in the main RC. He can file his counter assailing the allegations made in the proposed Paras of 7(a) and 7(b) by means of an amendment to the petition. The Rent Controller should dispose of the main petition as early as possible.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs.