IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.529 of 2025
Date of Decision: 11.05.2026
Maya Poddar and another H ...Petitioners
Versus
Pardeep Aggarwal ...Respondent
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge.
For the petitioners : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate.
For the responodent : Mr. P.S Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, C Advocate.
(Romesh Verma),
Judge
11.05.2026 (veena)
CMPMO No.529 of 2025
Date of Decision: 11.05.2026
Maya Poddar and another H ...Petitioners
Versus
Pardeep Aggarwal ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate.
For the responodent : Mr. P.S Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, C Advocate.
Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)
hThe 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 afÏdavits of Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Kiran Puri and Sh. Suresh
Sharma by way of rebuttal evidence, has been allowed.
2. 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
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:59:23 :::CIS
##PAGE2##2
P-1 which reveals that the said petition was filed on
19.09.2016.
3. The said eviction petition was duly contPested by the respondent/tenant by filing a reply, and the same has been placed on record.
4. 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 hact, conduct and acquiesces? OPR
5. Whether the petitioners have concealed the material facts from the Court? OPR
i 6. Relief
5. 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 afÏdavits
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:59:23 :::CIS
##PAGE3##3
of Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Kiran Puri and Sh. Suresh Sharma
by way of rebuttal evidence.
6. It has been averred in the application Pthat the afÏdavits 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 afÏdavits show that the said afÏdavits constitute evidence in afÏrmative. Thus the aforesaid evidence cannot be led in rebuttal. It has further been averred in the tapplication that the present petitioners/landlords by filing the said afÏdavits of the witnesses intends to lead the evidence in afÏrmative 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
iwitnesses during their cross examination.
7. 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 afÏdavits in question constitute evidence in afÏrmative in rebuttal and as such, evidence cannot be led, as alleged. It was further denied that the petitioners by filing the afÏdavits in question intend to
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:59:23 :::CIS
##PAGE4##4
lead evidence in afÏrmative under the guise of rebuttal which
is beyond the scope of issues as well as law as alleged.
8. The learned Rent Controller vide its iPmpugned judgment dated 18.08.2025 allowed the application filed by the tenant/res
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.