2025:HHC:20706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 181 of 2022 Date of decision 01.07.2025. Swaran bala Sahani ...Petitioner. Versus Rohin Anand ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. N. K. Bhalla, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): By way of this revision petition under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Controller Act (for short the ‘Act’), order dated 2.9.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Authority-III, Solan in Rent appeal No. 5-ADJ-II- 14/2020 (2018) has been assailed, whereby the appeal of the tenant has been dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 26/2 of 2012 has been affirmed. 2. At the very outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/tenant has pointed out that two separate applications were filed before the learned Appellate 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Authority by the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the’ Code’) for amendment of the reply and production of additional evidence respectively. The premise for filing these applications was that the landlord, as per plea sought to be raised by the tenant, had started his independent business in the first floor of the same building in which the shop in question is situated. 3. A grievance has been raised that the learned Appellate Authority not only failed to decide the applications independently but while dismissing the applications by the impugned order, has stated no reason for such dismissal. Reference has been made to para-26 of the impugned order. 4. The factual aspect with respect to there being no separate order(s) on the applications for amendment of reply as also for additional evidence, has not been disputed. 5. Para-26 of the impugned order reads as under:- “26. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant first of all preferred one application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of -3- reply stating that the disputed ground floor has been converted into commercial show room in which the business is being run, which is evident from the technical report prepared by expert Shri T.N. Verma. Another application preferred by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for production of additional evidence ile technical report along with photographs and to examine Shri T.N. Verma. Then application under Order 6 Rule 17 was again filed for amendment of additional reply, which was filed with the previous application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. All these applications were resisted by the respondent/petitioner stating that the plea has been taken with respect to first floor of the building, but the respondent is neither owner nor is in occupation of the first floor as it is owned by Shri Raj Kumar. Thus, it is clear that the plea raised by the appellant by way of these applications is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, all the applications are dismissed in the interest of justice. Be tagged with the main case file after doing needful for records”. 6. It is clear that the learned Appellate Authority has proceeded to decide the applications of the tenant without according any reasons for dismissal. Such an approach cannot be countenanced and for this reason only, the impugned order needs to be set aside. The -4- applications for amendment of reply as also the application for production of additional evidence have to be decided by the learned Appellate Authority on their own merits at the touchstone of relevant parameters, as prescribed under law. 7. The tenant is likely to suffer prejudice in absence of adjudication on his applications in accordance with law. 8. In result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 2.9.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Authority-III, Solan in Rent appeal No. 5-ADJ-II-14/2020 (2018) is set aside with direction to decide the appeal afresh after taking independent decision on the applications for amendment of the reply and for production of additional evidence filed by the tenant. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority- III, Solan on 11.7.2025. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 1st July, 2025 Judge (kck)