The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not to correct every legal error or re-weigh evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the Rent Controller-I, Solan, District Solan, in Rent Petition No.6 of 2018, titled Shammi Sahni vs. Punni Devi, whereby application filed by the present petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for framing additional issues, has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition and the documents appended along with the present petition.

3. The present respondent No.1 had filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act , 1987 for eviction of the petitioner and proforma respondents. The said petition was registered as 6/2018. The same had been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. In the same, it had been alleged that the non-residential shop in question had been rented to the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioner, i.e., one Shri Umeda Ram. Since Umeda Ram had died, therefore, all his legal heirs, i.e. petitioner and prforma respondents had been impleaded as party respondents in the aforesaid rent petition.

4. In response to the aforesaid rent petition, the present petitioner had taken a preliminary objection insofar as impleadment of the proforma respondent was concerned. In response so filed to the rent petition, present petitioner had categorically stated that “Bikaneri Bhujia Bhandar” is the tenant of the respondent/landlord, of which the present petitioner is the sole proprietor.

5. During pendency of the aforesaid rent petition bearing No.6/2018, another petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 bearing No.6/2 of 2019 for eviction of the present petitioner had been filed by the present respondent on the ground of arrears of rent. In the latter petition so filed for eviction, only the present petition was arrayed as the sole respondent/sole tenant. The same was based on the response filed by the present petition in the previous rent petition bearing No.6/2018, wherein eviction was being sought on the ground of bona fide requirement. The petition so filed for eviction on account of arrears of rent was compromised vide order dated 20.02.2020 before the trial Court. As in the same, the present petitioner had deposited the entire arrears of rent to the satisfaction of the present respondent/landlord.

6. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the present petitioner filed an application seeking amendment in the reply filed to the rent petition bearing No.6/2018. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. However, vide order dated 18.07.2023, passed by this Court, in CMPMO No.237 of 2022, titled Madan Lal vs. Shammi Sahni and others, the amendment was allowed.

7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, by way of an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code , framing of additional issue in the following terms was sought by the present petitioner:-

“(i) Whether the rent petition No.6/2 of 2019, titled as “Ms Shammi Sahni versus Sh. Madan Lal” decided on 20.02.2020 renders the the presetn rent petition as not maintainable in the eyes of law as alleged?....OPR”

8. Reply thereto was filed by the respondent. Post hearing the parties vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024, the appliation filed for framing of additional issue by the present petitioner was dismissed.

9. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that in the rent petition pending adjducation before the trial Court (bearing No.6/2018) on 08.01.2020, issue No.2 has been framed as under:-

“Issue No.2 Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR”

10. In view of the framing of the said issue, the trial Court has correctly observed that the entire issue of maintainability of the rent petition bearing No.6/2018 is covered in the same.

11. In terms of Order 8 Sub Rule 2, principles whereof apply to rent proceedings, respondent in his reply must raise by his pleadings all matters whi