JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Instant Revision Petition, invoking Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has been preferred against the order dated 11.06.2018, passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P., in CMA No. 54-6/2018, in Rent Case No. 18-2 of 17/12, whereby application preferred by the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) for amendment of reply to the main petition has been dismissed.

2. Parties herein are being referred hereinafter as per their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. landlord and tenants.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

4. Landlord has instituted the Rent Petition for eviction of premises in reference in April 2012 on the ground of bonafide requirement for herself and her unmarried daughter namely Bhupinder Kaur, by starting and establishing business of sale of Readymade Garments and ladies suits etc., and also arrears of rent by tenants from 01.09.2011 onwards.

5. During pendency of the Rent Petition, on account of family settlement, premises in reference was allotted to Bhupinder Kaur. Whereafter, an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed for substitution of Bhupinder Kaur in place of landlord Manjeet Kaur. The said application, filed in July 2013, was opposed by the tenants on the ground that claim of allotment of the shop to Bhupinder Kaur was concocted and false. The application was dismissed on 10.04.2015.

6. On 02.06.2015, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the tenants for amendment of the reply to the main petition. That application was allowed on 02.11.2015, whereby Para 9(a) was allowed to be added in preliminary objections of the reply filed by the tenants. Evidence of the landlord was closed on 22.08.2016 and, thereafter, petition was listed for recording evidence of the tenants.

7. Issues in the Rent Petition were framed on 08.01.2013. The petition remained pending for recording evidence of tenants till 2018 and it was listed for recording evidence of tenants on 16.04.2018. However, in the meanwhile, on 27.02.2018, second application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the tenants for adding Para 9(b) in preliminary submissions which reads as under:

“That since the case of the petitioner is that Ms. Bhupinder Kaur has become the owner of the property and Smt. Manjeet Kaur has no concern with the property in question. Hence, the present petition which has been filed by Smt. Manjeet Kaur deserves to be dismissed with penal cost as the same has not been filed by competent person.”

8. Aforesaid second application for amendment has been dismissed by the Rent Controller by passing impugned order dated 11.06.2018 on two grounds that the tenants have failed to exercise due diligence for filing application and also that there is nothing to reveal and demonstrate that amendment sought is necessary for determining controversy in the matter.

9. Learned counsel for the tenants has submitted that it is settled law that amendments are to be allowed liberally and CPC, as applicable strictly in Civil Suits, is not applicable in rent cases and application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the landlord claiming transfer of ownership of the shop to Bhupinder Kaur, which was dismissed on 10.04.2015 and, thereafter, on 27.02.2018 application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed on the basis of admissions made in the application filed by the landlord under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. It has been submitted that previous landlord Manjeet Kaur has lost its right on transfer of the premises in reference and, therefore, amendment sought was necessary for adjudication of the matter.

10. Learned counsel for the landlord has supported the impugned order for the reason assigned therein and has submitted that application has been filed only in order to delay the proceedings in the Eviction Petition. Whereas, landlord Manjee