( 2025:HHC:27414 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.100 & 102 of 2025 Decided on: 13th August, 2025 Civil Revision No.100 of 2025 M/s Mahashe Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. .......Petitioner versus Sidharth Sood and another ...Respondents Civil Revision No.102 of 2025 M/s Mahashe Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. .......Petitioner versus Sidharth Sood and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Banta, Advocate in both petitions. For the respondents: Mr.Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1 in both petitions. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Both these petitions are being decided by a common order as the common questions of facts and law are involved. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 2 2. Petitioner herein is facing two separate proceedings for eviction initiated by respondent No.1 herein under the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Ubran Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act’). Both the eviction petitions are pending adjudication before learned Rent Controller, Shimla. 3. Respondent No.1 Sidharth Sood claims himself to be landlord of the premises i.e building No.18, The Mall Shimla (for short ‘the premises’) which admittedly is in possession of petitioner M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited. 4. One of the eviction petition has been registered as Rent Case No.57/2 of 2013, which has been filed on the ground that respondent No.1 Sidharth Sood bonafide requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. The other petition has been registered as Rent Case No.58/2 of 2013, in which respondent No.1 Sidharth Sood had alleged that M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited has carried out additions and alterations in the premises without his consent, which have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. 5. In both the eviction petitions, M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited has taken a defence, though by ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 3 filing separate replies, that the premises was being possessed by it in part performance of oral agreement to sale dated 18.08.2003. In addition, certain other grounds of contest have also been raised. 6. M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited had also instituted a Civil Suit No.2-S/1 of 2023/2013 against respondent No.1 Sidharth Sood and his father Deepak Sood for the specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 18.08.2003, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2025. An appeal against the said judgment and decree has been filed by the M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited, which is pending before this Court. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited filed two separate applications in both the above noted eviction petitions for amendment of replies in the said petitions. It was averred that vide oral agreement to sale dated 18.08.2003, M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited had been handed over possession of the premises in part performance of the agreement. It was further averred that M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited had paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondent No.1 ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 4 Sidharth Sood, which has been reflected as refundable security in agreement dated 18.08.2003 executed between the parties. As per petitioner herein, after dismissal of the Civil Suit No.2-S/1 of 2023/2013, necessity of amending the reply has arisen and in this background, a plea has been sought to be raised to the effect that in case the eviction of M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited from the premises was to be ordered, it was entitled for refund of entire security amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in the first instance as a pre- condition. The amendment as sought by M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited is being reproduced as under:- “That in the alternative if this court comes to the conclusion that respondents are to be evicted on the grounds taken in the petition though not admitted by the replying respondent, in that case this Ld. Court has to direct the petitioner to tender and refund the entire security amount of Rs.25 Lakhs received by him as per agreement dated 18.8.2003 at the first instance before seeking eviction of respondents from the premises in question. The respondent humbly submits that he is not liable to be evicted from the premises as his possession is in part performance of Agreement of Sale detailed in reply to the eviction petition. However if this learned court comes to conclusion that the respondent Company is liable to be evicted, then no eviction order can be passed without ordering and directing the petitioner to refund the said security amount of Rs. 25 lakhs ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 5 forthwith. For seeking the said alternative relief has arisen on account of decision of aforesaid suit for specific performance". 8. The applications for amendment of reply were contested by other side. 9. Learned Rent Controller vide orders impugned by way of these petitions has rejected the applications in both the petitions on the grounds firstly that the amendment as sought was not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties; and secondly, the filing of applications for amendment of reply at such a belated stage was not bonafide. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Sood representing the petitioner herein has contended that the amendment is necessary for adjudication of the real controversy between the parties as Sections 8 and 9 of the Act entitles the petitioner herein to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. He would further contend that this plea has become available to M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited only after the dismissal of Civil Suit No.2-S/1 of 2023/2013. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate representing respondent No.1 herein has ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 6 supported the impugned orders by pointing out several attempts made by M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited in delaying final adjudication of the eviction proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. 12. As noticed above, the eviction proceedings have been filed by respondent No.1 Sidharth Sood on the ground as available to him under Section 14 of the Act. Though, the provisions of Act as enshrined in Sections 7 to 9 thereof prohibit the payment of certain amounts like the one as noticed above, but there is nothing in the Act that prohibits or bars the learned Rent Controller from exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act, in case where such excess sum has been found to have been paid. That being so, it cannot be said that the plea now sought to be raised by M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited, in its reply before the learned Rent Controller will have any effect on the adjudication of issues involved in eviction proceedings. Thus, the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller that the amendment sought is not relevant for determining the real controversy between the parties, cannot be faulted with. 13. The other contention raised on behalf of M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited that the plea now sought ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 7 to be raised by way of amendment was not earlier available to it, also deserves to be rejected. Indisputably, the fact, out of which the said plea has arisen, existed even before filing of the eviction proceedings. The plea now sought to be raised was available to M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited even at the stage when they filed reply or atleast before framing of issues in the eviction proceedings. It cannot be said that such plea has become available only after dismissal of the civil suit filed by M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited. There is no bar or prohibition for a party to raise the pleas in alternative and keeping in view the facts of this case, M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited could have easily taken the plea in alternative at appropriate stage. 14. The amendment as sought by M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited can also not be allowed, in view of proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars the amendment in pleadings after commencement of trial unless the party seeking amendment satisfies the Court with the reasons which prevented it from seeking the amendment despite due diligence before commencement of trial. In the instant cases, the applications ( 2025:HHC:27414 ) 8 filed by M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited are totally silent on this aspect. 15. The impugned order reveals that the evidence of the parties had been closed before the learned Rent Controller in the month of November, 2023. Thereafter, the matter came to be adjourned repeatedly for one reason or the other and most of the times, at the instance of M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited. Thus, the observation made by learned Rent Controller expressing doubts on bonafide of M/s Mahashe Jewellers Private Limited also cannot be said to be without reason. 16. In result, I do not find any merit in both the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Orders dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla are affirmed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. August 13, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge