Judgment :- 1. The 1st respondent landlord of a building filed an application under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for evicting the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and that he required the building bona fide for his own occupation. Later two more grounds were added by way of amendment, namely, that the petitioner is in possession of another building sufficient for carrying on his business and that he sub-let the building to the 2nd respondent without the consent of the landlord. The petitioner denied all the grounds raised by the landlord. The Rent Control Court negatived the contention of the landlord that the petitioner is in arrears of rent and that the landlord required the building for his own occupation bona fide. Nevertheless, that court found that the additional grounds urged by way of amendment, namely, that the petitioner sub-let the building and that he is in occupation of another room sufficient for his purpose have been made out and accordingly ordered eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda). Pending the appeal the Act was amended (Act 2 of 1973) by incorporating a proviso to S.11 (4) (i) which is in the following terms: "Provided that an application under this clause shall not be made for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy unless the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and the tenant has failed to terminate the transfer or the sub-lease as the case may be. within thirty days of of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof." The learned Sub Judge applied this proviso and having found that the landlord failed to issue a registered notice held that he is not entitled to eviction on the ground of subletting, However, the order of eviction was confirmed holding that the petitioner is in possession of a room nearby sufficient for his purpose as contemplated in S.11(4) (iii) of the Act. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District Court and that court concurred with the subordinate authorities in holding that the petitioner has another shop room in the same locality sufficient for his purpose. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District Court and that court concurred with the subordinate authorities in holding that the petitioner has another shop room in the same locality sufficient for his purpose. That court also found that the amendment to the Rent Control Act made by Act 2 of 1973 has no retrospective operation and hence reversed the finding of the Sub Judge as to the sub-letting. According by the revision petition was dismissed. The present revision petition is filed under S.115, C.P.C., in these circumstances. 2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Rent Control Court and the other authorities under the Act erred in deciding the case on the additional grounds raised by the landlord by way of amendment to the rent control petition. According to her, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the rent control petition and in support of that relied on the decision of Mathew J. (as he then was) in Lalitha v. Lakshmi Bai (1967 KLT 182). Before I refer to this decision it will be useful to read S.23(1) 0) of the Act which is in the following terms: "23. Summons, etc. (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters: (j) power to amend any defector error in orders or proceedings;"' This statutory provision enables the Rent Control Court to allow amendment of orders and proceedings if there is any defect or error in them. Rent Control petition is part of the 'proceeding.' Black's Law Dictionary defines 'proceeding' thus: "Any application to a Court of justice however for aid in the enforcement of rights, for relief, for redress of injuries, for damages or for any remedial object." Stroud also points out that the word 'proceeding' may mean according to the context, either "any action" or "any proceeding in the action" (Stroud's Legal Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 1561). 'Proceeding' is not defined in the Rent Control Act and so applying the general meaning given above it is clear that rent control petition is a'proceeding' within the meaning of S.23 (1)(f) of the Act. 3, p. 1561). 'Proceeding' is not defined in the Rent Control Act and so applying the general meaning given above it is clear that rent control petition is a'proceeding' within the meaning of S.23 (1)(f) of the Act. The only other requirement to exercise the power of amendment is that there must be a defect or error in the petition. If there are other grounds in existence to claim eviction and by an omission they were not mentioned in the petition it can be said that an error was committed in not stating them in the petition for eviction. This is what happened to the landlord in this case. These grounds which he omitted to include in the petition were grounds that existed on the date of the application for eviction. It may be that if these grounds were not available on the date the application for eviction was filed it cannot be said that there was any defect or error in the rent control petition. The case relied on by the revision petitioner was a case of that type and the following observation of Mathew J. in the decision referred to above makes this position clear: "The petition as framed was not defective in any sense. The ground that is sought to be added is a ground which arose subsequent to the filing of the petition. In the petition as filed the grounds were that the landlord required the building for her own personal occupation, and that there were arrears of rent. Those grounds, if made out, would have been sufficient for the landlord to recover possession of the building. Therefore it cannot be said that the non-inclusion of a ground which was not available to the landlord at the time she filed the petition is a defect in the proceedings." The headnote given in the report is not correct. The contention of the petitioner in that case is stated as the decision of the court in the headnote and this mistake has not been noticed in Giraja v. Bhaktha (AIR. 1971 Kerala 236) also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Rent Control Court has no power to amend the rent control petition if there is a defect or error in the proceeding. Here the grounds sought to be raised by amendment were grounds which existed before the petition but omitted to be included in it. 1971 Kerala 236) also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Rent Control Court has no power to amend the rent control petition if there is a defect or error in the proceeding. Here the grounds sought to be raised by amendment were grounds which existed before the petition but omitted to be included in it. They were rightly allowed to be raised by way of amendment by the Rent Control Court. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Rent Control Court and the other authorities under the Act in considering the additional grounds raised by the landlord for eviction. 3. The amendment of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by Act 2 of 1973 is not retrospective and therefore the District Court was right in holding that the newly added proviso to S.11 (4) (i) will not apply to the instant case. But, there is no evidence to show that the sub-letting to the 2nd respondent was subsequent to the commencement of the Act. The Act was extended to the Panchayat where the building is situate only in 1968. Therefore, the landlord has not made out the ground of sub-letting to evict the petitioner. 4. But, there is enough evidence to show that the petitioner has got another building in his possession in the same locality sufficient for his requirement. Ext. X-1 and the oral evidence in the case furnish ample proof of this ground and all the authorities under the Act have concurred in coming to the conclusion that the landlord has made out a case for eviction on this ground. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in their conclusion. There fore, there is nothing to interfere in this case. 5. In the result, I dismiss the revision petition. But, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.