IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1767 & 1812 of 2010 Between: C.R.P.No.1767 of 2010 Suguna S.Jahagirdar …Petitioner A n d Chandra Mohan …Respondent A n d C.R.P.No.1812 of 2010 Suguna S.Jahagirdar …Petitioner A n d Ramesh Dopade …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1767 & 1812 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1767 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 24-02-2010 in I.A.No.1052 of 2009 in R.C.No.395 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice for amending the eviction petition, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.1812 of 2010 is directed against the dismissal of similar application in I.A.No.1051 of 2009 in R.C.No.394 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, filed by the petitioner herein. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 4. As both the civil revision petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. The petitioner herein is the landlady in respect of the schedule premises in both the petitions and the respondents in the civil revision petitioners are respective tenants thereof. The petitioner filed the eviction petitions on the ground of additional accommodation. The respondents/tenants filed counter opposing the petitions. 6. The main RCs were coming up for coming up for enquiry. At that stage, the landlady filed two petitions for amendment of the main petitions which reads as follows:- i) “In para 7 of the eviction petition the year of the lease be corrected as 1993 instead of 1998 at 3rd line and 11th line. ii) In para-11 of the eviction petition 18th line after the post operation be corrected as ICCU after step down instead of 100. iii) In para-17 of the eviction petition the year of construction be corrected to 15 years instead of 5 years similarly in better particular petition the year of construction be corrected as beginning of 1993 instead of 2002”. 7. According to the petitioner, there has been typographical mistakes that occurred while drafting the original petition and she sought to correct them by way of amendment. The respondents-tenants denied the same and contended that the proposed amendments would change the cause of action and also their valuable right of defence would be taken away. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Rent Controller dismissed both the applications and hence the present civil revision petitions by the landlady. 8. According to the petitioner, the lease commenced in 1993 and by mistake it was mentioned as 1998 in the petition. The respondents contend that it is not a typographical mistake and they also filed a copy of the lease deed showing the date of lease as 28-08-1998. The respondents have taken a plea in the counter that the original tenancy commenced from 1993 and it was renewed for another 15 years and the Court has no jurisdiction. 9. The second amendment sought by the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner is renovating the part of the second floor into two major operation theatres, one minor operation theatre and post operation rooms i.e., ICCU etc., instead of the words “4 step down 100 beds” There appears to be a typographical error in the said wording in line 18 of para 11 of the petition as the existing wording is not making a proper sense and, therefore, the proposed amendment can be permitted to rectify the typographical error. 10. The third amendment relates to the year of construction in para 17 of the petition. It is stated that the building was constructed more than 5 years ago. The same is sought to be corrected as ‘15’ years instead of ‘5’ years and in the better particulars petition the date of construction which is stated as 2002 is sought to be corrected as beginning of 1993. One of the contentions raised by the respondents-tenants in the main counter is that the Court has no jurisdiction since the building is constructed in 2002 i.e., more than 4 years ago and the petitioner now seeks to amend the same as 15 years old. The proposed amendment, if allowed, would certainly have a direct bearing on the plea of the respondents that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The valuable right of defence based on such plea would certainly get defeated. In fact, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the building was constructed in the year 1993 as now claimed. As rightly observed by the learned Rent Controller, the proposed amendment, if allowed, would certainly cause prejudice to the defence taken by the respondents/tenants. It is well settled that an amendment which seeks to introduce a new case and a new cause of action and thereby cause prejudice to the defence of the respondents/ tenants, cannot be permitted. However, the proposed second amendment which is only to rectify a typographical mistake can be allowed. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are modified accordingly permitting the amendment in part to the extent stated above. 12. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th April, 2011 Lrkm