The present petition arises out of the order dated 18.08.2025, as passed by the learned Rent Controller, Solan, District Solan, H.P., whereby application field by the respondent under Section 151 C.P.C, for rejecting the affidavits of Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Kiran Puri and Sh. Suresh Sharma by way of rebuttal evidence, has been allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/landlords filed the petition against the respondent-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The copy of the petition has been placed on record as Annexure P-1 which reveals that the said petition was filed on 19.09.2016.

The said eviction petition was duly contested by the respondent/tenant by filing a reply, and the same has been placed on record.

The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 15.11.2022 framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for their own personal use and occupation as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the premises is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR

3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of party, as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the petitioners are estopped by their own act, conduct and acquiesces? OPR

5. Whether the petitioners have concealed the material facts from the Court? OPR

6. Relief

The landlords concluded their evidence and thereafter time was granted to the respondent-tenant to complete his evidence. After tenant concluded his evidence, the learned trial Court fixed the matter for rebuttal evidence. When such time was granted to the landlords/petitioners, an application was filed by the tenant under the provisions of section 151 CPC dated 09.06.2025 for rejecting the affidavits of Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Kiran Puri and Sh. Suresh Sharma by way of rebuttal evidence.

It has been averred in the application that the affidavits intended to be examined as rebuttal evidence by the petitioners are beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence. It has also been averred that the contents of the affidavits show that the said affidavits constitute evidence in affirmative. Thus the aforesaid evidence cannot be led in rebuttal. It has further been averred in the application that the present petitioners/landlords by filing the said affidavits of the witnesses intends to lead the evidence in affirmative under the guise of rebuttal evidence, which is beyond the scope of the issues as well as the law also. It has further been averred that the proposed evidence is an effort to fill up the lacunae left over by the petitioners during their evidence and also an endeavour to withdraw the admissions made by them and the witnesses during their cross examination.

The said application was duly resisted by the present petitioners by refuting all the averments as made in the application and it was denied that the affidavits in question constitute evidence in affirmative in rebuttal and as such, evidence cannot be led, as alleged. It was further denied that the petitioners by filing the affidavits in question intend to lead evidence in affirmative under the guise of rebuttal which is beyond the scope of issues as well as law as alleged.

The learned Rent Controller vide its impugned judgment dated 18.08.2025 allowed the application filed by the tenant/respondent and the affidavits of Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Kiran Puri and Sh. Suresh Shama filed by the present petitioner by way of rebuttal evidence were rejected beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence.

Feeling dissatisfied, the landlords/ petitioners have approached this Court by filing instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order as passed by the learned Rent Controller(1), Solan is erroneous and against the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by the Hon’ble different Hig