IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (RC).No. 66 of 2011(O)
1. C.P.KHADER KUTTY, S/O. CHUNDAMVEETTIL
... Petitioner
2. SUHARA KHADER, W/O. C.P.KHADER KUTTY,
Vs
1. M/S. AEGIS CRM SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD.,
... Respondent
2. MR. AMIT BHATNAGAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :07/02/2011
O R D E R
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/-