JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Petitioners are successors-in-interest of original respondent-Sh. Pradeep Kumar. Their application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the reply filed by the original respondent to the petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, has been turned down by the learned Rent Controller on 26.06.2019. Feeling aggrieved, instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by them.

2. Relevant factual position:-

2(i). Present respondent filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act for eviction of one Sh. Pradeep Kumar from the premises in question on 31.12.2010.

2(ii). Reply by Sh. Pradeep Kumar to the above petition was filed on 10.05.2011. In respect of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, following averments were made in different paras of the reply:-

“Preliminary Objections

2. That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to this petition. Original father of the replying respondent was tenant under one Sh. Hira Lal. After the death of late Sh. Kapuria, the present replying respondent had inherited the tenancy rights. However, the petitioner has never informed regarding the purchase of the premises in question from Sh. Hira Lal in any manner. Thus the replying respondent is still tenant under Sh. Hira Lal and not the present petitioner.

On Merits

2. In reply to para-2, it is submitted that the petition is bad for want of impeding all the necessary parties. As submitted above, initially the father of the replying respondent was inducted as a tenant by Sh. Hira Lal in the year. After the death of Kapuria, father of the respondent, the present respondent is occupying the premises in question under the original owner Sh. Hira Lal. The petitioner has failed to disclose as to how he is claiming himself to be the sole owner of the outhouse in question.

5. In reply to para-5, it is submitted that the replying respondent is a tenant in the accommodation in question.

11. In reply to para-11, it is admitted that the monthly rent is Rs.100/- and electricity and water charges are paid according to the consumption.

12. ………………………….. As a matter of fact since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the fact that on what account the petitioner is progressing further disclose the details of the completion plan and order of sanction for raising this building.

13. That the contents of para-13 as alleged are not disputed. The monthly rent is Rs.100/-”

2(iii). Sh. Pradeep Kumar died during the year 2011. His legal heirs, i.e. the present petitioners, were brought on record on 19.06.2013.

2(iv). Issues were framed in presence of learned counsel for the present petitioners/legal representatives of original respondent-Sh. Pradeep Kumar on 22.08.2013. Evidence on behalf of the landlord/present respondent was concluded on 26.05.2018 and matter was fixed for evidence of RWs on 19.06.2018. RWs were not present on 19.06.2018, therefore, last opportunity was granted to the present petitioners to produce their witnesses on 25.07.2018. On the next date, i.e. 25.07.2018, petitioners instead of leading evidence, moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC. This application was eventually allowed on 17.08.2018 and the petitioners were directed to produce their witnesses on 29.10.2018 by way of final opportunity. On the next date, i.e. 29.10.2018, present petitioners informed that they intended to change their counsel. For such reason, further opportunity to lead evidence was granted to them and the matter was fixed for their evidence on 27.12.2018. Yet another final opportunity for producing evidence was accorded to the present petitioners on 27.12.2018 for 07.03.2019. No RW was present on 07.03.2019, however, an application was moved by the present petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedu