Order VI Rule 17 | Subsequent Acquisition of Shop Room by Tenant Can Be Brought on Record Through Amendment: Kerala High Court

“Amendment justified when based on genuine subsequent events which may affect eviction under Section 11(3)”, In a ruling that reaffirms the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and emphasizes the importance of subsequent developments in rent control proceedings, the Kerala High Court dismissed a challenge against an interlocutory order allowing amendment of an eviction petition to include acquisition of another shop room by the tenant.

Deciding OP (RC) No. 252 of 2025, a Bench comprising Justice V.G. Arun and Justice Harisankar V. Menon upheld the Rent Control Court’s order dated 26.11.2025 in I.A. No.16/2025 in RCP No.16/2020, which permitted the landlord to amend the pleadings to bring on record the fact that the tenant had recently obtained another shop room suitable for conducting his business in the same locality.

The Court ruled that the order was neither illegal nor perverse, and no interference was warranted under Article 227.

Tenant’s Challenge to Amendment Post-Evidence Rejected

The petitioner–tenant, Kunhimoontepurakkal Manaf, had approached the High Court alleging that the landlord, Cheriya Madathil Beena, had wrongly been permitted to amend the rent control petition after the commencement of trial and completion of landlord’s evidence.

It was argued that the amendment lacked bona fides, and the landlord had prior knowledge of the tenant's acquisition of the alternate premises. Further, it was contended that the newly acquired premises was not reasonably sufficient for carrying out the tenant’s business and that the amendment was filed only to harass the tenant.

 “Amendment Not Claimed as a Matter of Right, but Founded on Due Diligence”

The Court disagreed with the tenant's objection and upheld the Rent Control Court’s discretion, noting that the landlord had acted based on a new municipal license dated 01.09.2025, which supported the claim that the information about the alternate premises came to light only recently.

“In light of the pleadings in the application seeking amendment, as well as from the license issued by the Municipality referred to above, the prayer seeking amendment appears to have been a genuine one.” [Para 9]

The Court clarified that while an amendment cannot be sought as a matter of right, it can certainly be allowed if due diligence is shown, especially in light of subsequent events that have a fundamental bearing on the grounds for eviction, particularly under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Acquisition of Alternate Premises Has Direct Bearing on Bona Fide Need Under Section 11(3)

The Rent Control Petition had been filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The Court noted that the subsequent acquisition of another shop room in the same locality was highly relevant to the question of whether the tenant had alternate accommodation, a critical factor for deciding eviction under Section 11(3).

Referring to the decision in Benjeena v. Pappachan [2024 KLT Online 1668], the Court reiterated: “Amendment could be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. True, it was held that the amendment cannot be sought as a matter of right. But where due diligence is shown, it must be allowed.” [Para 9]

Reliance on Landmark Judgment in Korah Abraham v. Varughis

The Court also referred to the decision in Korah Abraham v. Varughis, 2004 (2) KLT 192, which permits consideration of subsequent events in eviction proceedings if they have a fundamental impact on the dispute.

Quoting the principle from Korah Abraham, the Court observed: “Subsequent events could be brought to the knowledge of the Rent Control Court, Appellate Authority and even before this Court so that the Court could mould the relief to do complete justice between the parties and also could shorten the litigation.” [Para 10]

The Division Bench emphasized that courts must ensure that such amendments are not used to delay proceedings or abuse process, but should not hesitate to allow them when they are genuine and relevant to the core issue.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 is Not Appellate in Nature

The High Court reiterated the settled law that under Article 227, the Court does not sit in appeal over discretionary or interlocutory orders of the Rent Control Court.

“The short issue arising for consideration is as to the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court cannot be found at fault in having issued the order.” [Paras 8, 10]

No perversity, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality was found in the Rent Control Court’s decision to permit the amendment.

Petition Dismissed, Amendment Upheld

Finding no merit in the original petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court:

“In the result, we find no merit in this original petition, and the same would stand dismissed.” [Final Paragraph]

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026