Judgment : Oral Judgment: Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner is a tenant. The rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.200/- per month initially and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs.400/- per month with the consent of the landlord and the tenant. On 7.3.1996, the original landlord sold the tenanted premises in favour of the respondent / landlord. The landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent and claimed Rent @ 10/- per sq.ft. The year of construction of the tenanted premises, as required under the provisions of the law was not pleaded in the application for fixation of fair rent. The petitioner/ tenant filed written statement and denied the claim of the landlord. The Rent Controller decided the application preferred by the respondent and enhanced the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs.2400/- p.m. The petitioner challenged the order of the Rent controller in an appeal before the Additional Collector, Amravati. The Additional Collector, Amravati observed that in the application filed by the respondent there was no pleading about the year of construction as required and hence the matter was liable to be remanded to the Rent Controller, Amravati for deciding the appeal afresh. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati remanding the matter to the Rent Controller by filing Writ Petition No.2556/2001. 3. After the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller, the landlord filed an amendment application for amendment of the application. By the proposed amendment, the landlord desired to plead that the house was constructed in the year 1971. The amendment application was allowed by the Rent Controller and the order was confirmed by the Additional Collector, Amravati in an appeal filed by the petitioner. The orders allowing the amendment application are challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.796/2002. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the orders it is clear that the Additional Collector, Amravati did not commit any error whatsoever in remanding the matter to the Rent Controller as there was no pleading pertaining to the year of construction of the house. After the matter was remanded, the authorities further did not commit any error in allowing the amendment application. After the matter was remanded, the authorities further did not commit any error in allowing the amendment application. The application was filed by respondent / landlord for fixation of fair rent and it was necessary for the respondent to plead the year in which the house was constructed. as required under the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Authorities permitted the respondent to amend the application as the amendment did not change the nature of the original application, since the original application was for fixation of fair rent. The proposed amendment was also necessary for effectively deciding the lis between the parties. In such a background it cannot be said that the authorities committed any error in allowing the amendment application. The orders passed by the authorities allowing the amendment application are just and reasonable and call for no interference, so also the order of the Additional Collector, Amravati remanding the matter to the Rent Controller also can not be interfered in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the writ petitions fail, and are dismissed with no order as to costs.