( 1 ) THE petitioners in this revision petition are the heirs of the original tenant, Narayana Mallya. The first respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed RCOP. No. 33/65 in the Court of the Munsiff at Mangalore, SK. seeking eviction under S. 21 (1) (h) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, on the ground that the premises are required by his son. The original tenant being dead, his legal representatives resisted the said application. The learned Trial Judge upheld the claim of the landlord and passed an order for eviction. The tenant challenged the said order and failed in appeal also. The present revision application is filed against these orders of the learned Trial as well as the appellate Judge. ( 2 ) SEVERAL questions have been urged before me by the learned advocate for the petitioners. But I do not propose to deal with all of them as a decision on a question relating to I. A. 3 filed by the petitioners before the lower appellate court would be sufficient to dispose of this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE provisions of the Mysore Rent Control Act apply to the area described as "mangalore Municipality. " In the petition, Para 3 (a), it was stated that the premises are described in the schedule and the schedule is annexed to the plaint and it is extracted below:"non-residential premises bearing door Nos. 447 and 448 with an upper storey thereon and situated in Port Ward in Mangalore town, South Kanara district. "in the way in which the description was given in the schedule, it is prima facie not possible to state as to whether the area is within "mangalore municipality". The description given in the plaint is 'port Ward' in Mangalore town. In the trial court no specific objection was raised that the area in dispute is beyond the Mangalore Municipal jurisdiction. It, however, appears that during the time the evidence was recorded some questions were put to some witnesses regarding this matter. The learned trial judge however did not deal with the question of jurisdiction as it was probably not urged before him, and so he passed an order of eviction under s. 21 of the Act. ( 4 ) AN application I. A. III was filed before the appellate court seeking leave to raise an additional ground of objection to the grounds of appeal. ( 4 ) AN application I. A. III was filed before the appellate court seeking leave to raise an additional ground of objection to the grounds of appeal. By this application it was sought to be contended that the property in dispute was beyond the Mangalore Municipal area and therefore, the application filed under S. 21 of the Act was not maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The learned appellate judge dealt with the application IA. III at the time of the hearing of the appeal and by the order passed under revision, he dismissed the application I. A. III and also the appeal. He felt that the petitioners should not be permitted to raise this new plea, ( 5 ) AN application for eviction under S. 21 of the Act can be filed and eviction sought on the grounds enumerated under the provisions of the act only if the provisions of the Act are applicable. Therefore, the question is as to whether to the area in question the provisions of the Act can be invoked. So, the question as to whether the area is within the Mangalore Municipal jurisdiction, is a jurisdictional fact and it is only on the determination of the jurisdictional fact in favour of the landlord that the proceedings can go on. It is true that the question of jurisdiction was not raised in the trial court, but as the question of jurisdiction is one which goes to the root of the matter, I am of the view that it can be raised at any stage. This court in B. Thammiah v. K. B. Subba Rao, (1964) 2 Mys. L. J. 346. has laid down that a point going to the root of the case could be allowed to be raised for the first time even at the stage of revision petition. In C. S. Lal v. Shaik Badashah, AIR. 1955 Bom. 75. it was held as under:"a plea as to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage, and if a court or authority has no jurisdiction, even the fact that a party does not raise the plea of jurisdiction will not confer jurisdiction upon that court or authority. " ( 6 ) DEALING with the question relating to the jurisdiction, in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR. 1954 SC. 340. " ( 6 ) DEALING with the question relating to the jurisdiction, in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR. 1954 SC. 340. it was held that:"it is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. "in Hiralal v. Kali Nath, AIR. 1962 SC. 199 it was stated that:"it is well settled that the objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case. Competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a court can be waived and this principle has oeen given a statutory recognition by enactments like s. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure". " ( 7 ) IN Srimanthu v. Venkatappayya , AIR. 1947 Mad. 347, FB. a Full Bench of the Madras high Court has laid down that:" When a Court has no jurisdiction, no agreement or act of party can confer jurisdiction which it does not possess. S. 21 which refers to objections as to the place of 'suing' will not apply to an execution petition as the presentation of an execution petition is not 'suing'. Moreover, S. 21 does not cover an objection going to the nullity of an order on the ground of want of jurisdiction. "in G. T. Firm v. D. J. Co. , Bombay, AIR. 1935 Nag. 250 FB a Full Bench of that Court held as under:"when a Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in which an order is made, such order is wholly void and the maxim applies that consent cannot give jurisdiction. "in G. T. Firm v. D. J. Co. , Bombay, AIR. 1935 Nag. 250 FB a Full Bench of that Court held as under:"when a Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in which an order is made, such order is wholly void and the maxim applies that consent cannot give jurisdiction. " ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the principles enunciated in the cases referred to above, it is clear that when a Court had no competence to try a cause, then it is a case relating to the inherent jurisdiction of the court. In the present case, what is contended is that the area where the property is situate, is outside the Mangalore Municipal jurisdiction. If this contention is accepted, then the proceedings taken under S. 21 will be entirely without jurisdiction and the entire proceedings culminating even in an order of eviction will be a nullity. Therefore, when such an important question, which goes to the very root of the matter, relating to the competence of the Court, which is a jurisdictional one, is raised, it is proper to allow the plea. Even though the pleas of jurisdiction is raised by means of an application in the appellate Court as an additional ground of appeal, it has to be treated as really an application for amendment of the objection statement filed to the original petition. It may be, that the petitioners- were not aware of their rights, or even negligent in not raising the plea at an earlier stage. In Manohar Lal v. N. B. M. Supply, Gurgaon, AIR. 1969 SC. 1267 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:"rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. "as stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the rules of procedure are intended to be a hand maid to the administration of justice and relief should not be refused merely because on account of some mistake, in-advertence or negligence, the contentions are not raised at an earlier stage. In that view, even though the petitioners could have raised the plea, though they might have been negligent, according to me, since no prejudice has happened as a result of the objection being not raised at an earlier stage I permit the petitioner to raise this plea. It may now be noted that it would be more appropriate that this jurisdictional question is disposed of in the present proceedings, lest an order passed by the Rent controller can be attacked as an order without jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that under the provisions of S. 48 (5) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, the appellate court has no power to allow the additional point to be raised. I am ot the view that this submission is not well-founded. S. 48 (5) of the Act enables the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit, either itself or through the Court, or the controller, as the case may be. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable under the Rent Control Rules. Having regard to the wordings of S. 48 (5) and Rule 16 of the Rules, I am of the view that the appellate Court is perfectly competent to allow a new plea to be raised which amounts to an amendment to the objection petition. The only thing that has to be done is. that having regard to a long delay, the landlord has to be compensated by costs before the application IA. 3 is allowed. In the result. I am of the view that the appellate Judge was in error in dismissing IA. 3. I, therefore, allow the said application IA. 3 and direct that the petitioners should pay Es. 250 as costs to the respondent- landlord. This sum of Rs. 3 is allowed. In the result. I am of the view that the appellate Judge was in error in dismissing IA. 3. I, therefore, allow the said application IA. 3 and direct that the petitioners should pay Es. 250 as costs to the respondent- landlord. This sum of Rs. 250 should be paid to the respondents-landlords within two months' from this date. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners also urged that the question of greater hardship arising under S. 21 (4) of the Mysore Rent control Act has not been considered. It may be seen that the trial Judge has not discussed this aspect of the matter in his order, even though a specific objection has been raised in the objection statement. Similarly, the appellate Judge has not cared to make any reference to this matter, even though by the time he disposed of the appeal the Supreme Court had decided the case reported in (1969) 1 SCWR. 1142. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the learned appellate Judge after disposing of the main jurisdictional fact, will have to consider, if necessary, the question relating to hardship. It is open to him either to record evidence and dispose of the appeal or if he thinks fit, he may either call for a finding from the trial Court or remit the case itself to the trial Court. ( 12 ) AS a result of the application IA. 3 being allowed now, the appellate Court will have to receive oral or/and documentary evidence and then dispose of the question whether the property in dispute is within the Municipal jurisdiction. For the purpose of deciding this question th6 appellate Judge may either as provided under S. 48 (5) record evidence himself or he may remit the case back to the trial Court for that purpose. It is for the appellate Judge to consider as to what steps are to be taken in regard to that matter. ( 13 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed, the order of the appellate Judge is set aside and he is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal de novo in the light of the observations made above. ( 14 ) NO costs in this revision petition. ( 13 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed, the order of the appellate Judge is set aside and he is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal de novo in the light of the observations made above. ( 14 ) NO costs in this revision petition. ( 15 ) SINCE the proceedings are going on for the last six years, it is directed that the recording of evidence and arriving at a final decision should be completed within six months from this date. --- *** --- .