Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

This Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kangra in Rent Petition No. 3/2007.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake) has sought eviction of the petitioner and proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenants’ for convenience sake) on two grounds, firstly that the tenants are in arrears of rent and secondly, the landlord requires the shops in question bona fide for the purpose of building and rebuilding and such rebuilding cannot be carried out without the demised shops being vacated. The tenants filed reply to the petition. However, during the pendency of the petition, tenant Moti Ram filed an application, under order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment to the reply. The amendment was sought primarily on the ground that the State of Himachal Pradesh was the true owner of the land and shops and the mutation of proprietorship of the shops in question had been wrongly attested in favour of the landlord and no sanction had been accorded by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the construction and reconstruction. The application was contested by the landlord. The gist of the reply filed by the landlord was that the amendment was not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the landlord and tenants. It was also averred that the tenant always knew about the attestation of proprietorship of shops dated 24.8.1982. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on 2.11.2010, hence, the present revision petition.

3. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has strenuously argued that the order dated 2.11.2010 has been passed by the learned Rent Controller by ignoring the settled principles of law. According to him, the amendment to reply was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the landlord and tenants.

5. I have heard Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj and have perused the copy of petition, replies filed by the tenants and application under order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the reply filed thereto.

6. The petition has been filed seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of arrears of rent and the building was required bona fide by the landlord for building and rebuilding and the same cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenants. Tenant Moti Ram has sought the amendment in the reply by inserting that proprietary rights have wrongly been conferred in favour of the landlord vide mutation No. 52 dated 24.8.1982. His further case was that the Government has not sanctioned the plans for building and rebuilding.

7. The application for amendment has been preferred by the tenant at the stage when the case was listed for presence of RWs and last opportunity had been granted to adduce their evidence. The tenant always knew about the conferment of proprietary rights on the landlord vide mutation No. 52 on 24.8.1982. Ex.P4 was produced in evidence in rent petition No. 9/1983 and the predecessor-in-interest of tenants also submitted documents Ex.P2 wherein also there was reference of the mutation No. 52 decided on 24.8.1982. In these circumstances, the application was an afterthought to delay the proceedings at the stage when the RWs were summoned and the last opportunity was granted. The ground taken by the tenant, seeking amendment of the reply, was also not necessary for determining the real controversy between the landlord and tenants. The tenants have admitted the tenancy. It was for the State to challenge the conferment of proprietary rights, if the same was not in accordance with law. The tenants had no locus standi to challenge mutation No. 52 attested on 24.8.1982 by the Revenue Officer.

8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers versus Narayanaswamy and sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC