IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 OP (RC).No. 66 of 2011(O) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.2374/2010 IN RCP.7/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONERS/LANDLORD ---------------------------- 1. C.P.KHADER KUTTY, S/O. CHUNDAMVEETTIL PAZHAYA OTTAYIL KUNHALIKUTTY, R/A MATTAYIL HOUSE, THALAKKAD (PO), PIN THALAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUHARA KHADER, W/O. C.P.KHADER KUTTY, R/A MATTAYIL HOUSE, THALAKKAD (PO), PIN THALAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): TENANTS ------------------------------- 1. M/S. AEGIS CRM SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD., (AN ESSAR GROUP COMPANY), ESSAR HOUSE, 11 KESHAV RAO, KHADYE MARG, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400 034. 2. MR. AMIT BHATNAGAR, SR.MANAGER - INFRASTRUCTURE (KERALA) G2, EXPRESS TOWERS, JUDGES AVENUE, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017, KERALA. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ O. P. (Rent Control) No.66 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the Landlord is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Tirur by which an application for amendment of the counter statement filed by the tenant/respondent stands allowed. By virtue of the amendment presently allowed, the words “lease and licence” used by the tenant while referring to the arrangement between the parties stand corrected as “leave and licence”. The learned Rent Control Court accepted the case of the tenant that it was by a mistake that the words “lease and licence” were used instead of the words “leave and licence”. According to Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the amendment presently O. P. (Rent Control) No.66 of 2011 -2- allowed will enable the respondents to get away from the impact of fatal admissions made by them in the original counter statement regarding the nature of the demise. 2. We have carefully gone through Ext.P6 order. We do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P6. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s Ladha Ram & Co. (1977 SC 680) is to the effect that amendment of the written statement should not be allowed if the same will enable the defendant to get away from the impact of fatal admissions made by him in the original written statement. Having examined Ext.P6 again in the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, we are unable to find any fatal admissions made in the original counter statement to be covered by the above judgment. The O.P.(RC) will stand O. P. (Rent Control) No.66 of 2011 -3- dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-