1 (S/21) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: ORDER :: Om Prakash Vs. Ram Vilas & Anr. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2471/2006. Date of Order :::: 12.05.2006. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.P. Sharma, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-tenant seeks to question the order dated 20.04.2006 (Annex.1) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur allowing an amendment in the eviction petition and permitting the landlord to correct the rate of rent from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal while considering the application for amendment found that in paragraph 3 and 4 of the eviction petition, the rate of rent has been mentioned by the landlord at Rs.3,000/- per month; however, for bonafide error it has been mentioned at Rs.2,000/- per month in the 2 latter paragraph and so also in the affidavit. Finding it to be necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy, the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the amendment by the impugned order. Assailing the order dated 20.04.2006 (Annex.1), Mr. S.P. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- tenant has vehemently contended that the rate of rent has been stated at Rs.2,000/- in the affidavit too and since the evidence cannot be amended, the application for amendment could not have been allowed. The hyper technical suggestion made on behalf of the petitioner is fundamentally misplaced. The petition for eviction is submitted to the Rent Tribunal under the provisions of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and is required to be accompanied by affidavits and documents upon which the landlord seeks to rely upon. If an inadvertent error enters the petition and so also in the accompanying affidavit, it cannot be said that such an error can never be corrected. The procedure and powers of the Tribunal as spelt out in Section 21 of the Act of 2001 makes it clear that the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure but is guided by the principles of natural justice and has also the powers to regulate its own procedure. 3 Permitting an amendment necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy remains an essential part of the rules of procedure which are always intended to be the hand maids of justice. When the Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice and has exercised its powers for allowing an amendment in the interest of justice, such exercise of powers ordinarily calls for no interference. Moreover, so far the amendment in question is concerned, not only it could have been permitted; but it ought to have been and has rightly been permitted so as to facilitate adjudication on merits. A perusal of the eviction petition (Annex.2) shows that in paragraphs 3 and 4, the landlord has specifically mentioned the rate of rent at Rs.3,000/- per month but in the latter paragraph 10, the same rate has been mentioned at Rs.2,000/- per month, which could be nothing but a typographical or an inadvertent error. The affidavit has been submitted in support of his case by the landlord containing the same error, i.e. rate of rent at Rs.2,000/- per month. However, it remains indisputable that the petitioner-tenant himself is precisely aware of the questions in controversy that the landlord is claiming the rate of rent at Rs.3,000/- and in fact he has joined issue on this aspect with specific averments in paragraph 3 of the reply that the rate of rent was 4 Rs.1,700/- per month and was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month and it was never Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner has further pointed out in paragraph 7(a) of the reply about the claim of rent @ Rs.3000/- per month in the notice and about dialogues in relation thereto. It is apparent that the petitioner is also aware of the fact that the landlord is claiming the rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and in that view of the matter, the application submitted by the landlord seeking amendment for correction of inadvertent error has rightly been allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal and does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The impugned order cannot be said to be resulting in failure of justice and on the contrary if he amendment would not have been allowed, it would have resulted in failure of justice causing unnecessary complications in determining real questions in controversy. This Court is clearly of the opinion that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India such an order allowing amendment in the eviction petition deserves not to be interfered with because the impugned order neither leads to failure of justice nor causes any irreparable injury to the petitioner. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India submitted by the tenant questioning the order as passed in the present case shows it clearly that the 5 petitioner is interested in protracting the trial of the eviction petition and seeks to put spokes to its progress by raising hyper technical objections contrary to the requirements of fair play and principles of natural justice. Such an attempt cannot be countenanced. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is dismissed without being admitted. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//