1. Eviction petition filed under the local rent control act was amended by the Rent Controller to include additional pleadings regarding the landlord's property interests and occupation. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(HP) 904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J.
M/s Rakesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar & others - Petitioners
Versus
Nandan Tandon – Respondent
CMPMO No.413 of 2026
Decided On : 09-10-2026
Important Points
Acceptance of costs in a conditional order, where payment is a condition precedent to the relief being granted, creates an estoppel that prevents the party from subsequently challenging the validity or correctness of that order.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
HIMACHAL PRADESH URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT : S.14
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.17, S.151
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.17, S.151
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
Headnote
(A) Estoppel - Conditional Orders - Acceptance of costs as a condition precedent for allowing an application precludes the party from challenging the merits of that order. (Para 18, 20)
(B) Discretionary Costs - Distinction - If costs are awarded independently of the condition for allowing the petition, acceptance does not create an estoppel. (Para 18, 19)
(C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - An order allowing amendment subject to costs is considered a conditional order. (Para 20)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging an order allowing an amendment after accepting the costs imposed by the court.
(B) Discretionary Costs - Distinction - If costs are awarded independently of the condition for allowing the petition, acceptance does not create an estoppel. (Para 18, 19)
(C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - An order allowing amendment subject to costs is considered a conditional order. (Para 20)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging an order allowing an amendment after accepting the costs imposed by the court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contested the amendment as impermissible and lacking bona fide, while the respondent argued the amendment was necessary and the petitioners were estopped by accepting costs. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
3. The court found the order allowing amendment upon payment of costs was conditional; having accepted the costs, the petitioners were precluded from challenging the order. (Para 16 , 20 , 21 )
4. A party who accepts costs awarded under a conditional order allowing an amendment is estopped from challenging the validity of that order on merits. (Para 18 , 19 )
5. The revision petition challenging the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed on the ground of estoppel. (Para 22 )
6. Does the principle of estoppel apply when a party accepts costs awarded in a conditional amendment order?
Yes, when an order is conditional and payment of costs is a condition precedent to the petition being allowed, accepting the costs precludes the party from subsequently assailing the order on merits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. When is an order allowing costs considered to be a conditional order versus a discretionary exertion of power?
An order is conditional if payment of costs is a condition precedent to the relief granted, such as an amendment. If costs are merely awarded independently as a discretionary measure without being a condition for the relief, accepting them does not create estoppel. (Para 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The instant petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P., dated23.07.2026, whereby application filed by the landlord/respondent for the amendment of petition came to be allowed.
2. The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the present respondent/landlord filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act for the eviction of tenants, the present petitioners, from the suit premises situated at Lakkar Bazar. As per the averments as made in the eviction petition, it was contended that the shop was let out to late Shri Jia Lal by the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord. The eviction petition was sought on the ground of arrears of rent and that the petitioners have carried out material alteration in the premises (shop) in their possession and that the premises as being occupied by the petitioners are urgently required by the respondent for his own personal and bonafide need. It was averred that the son of the respondent, Mr. Saksham Tandon, is about to complete his course/education of hotel mana gement and after completion of his studies, the respondent intends to open the restaurant in the premises in occupation of the petitioners. The eviction petition was filed in the month of September 2018 against the present petitioners.
3. The said eviction petition was opposed by filing a comprehensive reply by the present petitioners by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, concealment of fact, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and that the rent petition is bad on account of non-joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, all the averments as made in the petition were specifically refuted and denied.
4. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues in the matter on 21.08.2019 in the following manner:
1. Whether the respondents are in arrears of amount @Rs.1500/- per month since February, 2012? OPP
2. Whether the respondents have carried out material alterations thereby diminishing the value of the demised premises, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner bonafidely required the demised premises for personal need, as prayed for?OPP
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR
5. Whether there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as alleged? OPR
6. Whether the petitioner has concealed material facts from the court, as alleged? OPR
7. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR
8. Relief.
5. Thereafter, the landlord/respondent concluded his evidence and the case was fixed for the evidence of the present petitioners. At that stage, the respondent/landlord filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of rent petition. In the application, it was averred that recently, while preparing the case, it transpired that landlord has inadvertently not correctly mentioned the details as mentioned in para 19 of the petition. It was stated that the introduction of said addition is very material and important to adjudicate the issue in controversy effectively and finally. Further, that addition of the same is also necessary in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the landlord intended to add following lines in para 19, which reads as follow:
“....The petitioner has not vacated or purchased any commercial accommodation in the urban area of Shimla in the past five year before the filing of the petition. The petitioner and his brother are occupying two separate shops adjacent to the shop of the respondents.”
6. Therefore, it was prayed that after accepting the instant application, the amendment as s ought may be allowed in the interest of justice and fair play. r
7. The present petitioners contested the said application by filing reply and prayed for the dismissal of the application on the ground that what the applicant/respondent has not pleaded in the eviction p
