LIAQUAT ALI KHAN Vs. PIYARE LAL SUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner, who, aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Shimla, whereby his application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of reply came to be dismissed, has filed the instant petition.

(2.) Respondent No.1/landlord, has filed a petition under Sec. 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for shot, the Act) against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting as well as rebuilding and reconstruction of the building in question and the same is pending adjudication before the learned Rent Controller for nearly one decade having been instituted on 18.11.2008.

(3.) It was during the course of recording of evidence of the respondents that the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the reply on the ground that Thara measuring 2 x 2 feet is not part of the building No.98 and is independent in the form of Almirah type structure between municipal stairs and building No.98 and in case landlord/respondent No.1 wants to reconstruct the building, demised premises are not required to be vacated. The petitioner further averred that during the course of evidence led by respondent No.1, it has come on record that respondent No.1 is not the owner of 'Teh Zamin', which is in the ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh and for that reason, the plan submitted by respondent No.1 was rejected. It was further averred that since he was paying 'Teh Bazari' to the Municipal Corporation Shimla for the last twenty five many years, therefore, the Municipal Corporation, Shimla was necessary party. On these allegations, the petitioner sought to raise preliminary objection No.5 and lines at the end of para 20 of the reply, which read thus:-