1 ( 2025:HHC:29183 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.508 of 2025 Date of Decision : 28.08.2025 Praveen Kumar Sharma …… Petitioner Versus Harjit Singh Kochhar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Nishant Khidttta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of order dated 05.08.2025, passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, whereby an application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner seeking amendment of the reply filed to the eviction petition, has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended along-with present petition. 3. In the eviction petition preferred by the present respondent, it has been categorically averred that the respondent is the landlord in the case at hand. In response to the eviction petition, the present petitioner (tenant) before the Rent Controller categorically submitted in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:29183 preliminary objections that the present respondent is not absolute owner/ landlord of the premises in question and, hence, the petition filed for eviction without impleading the other co-sharers is bad for non-joinder of parties. Other than the aforesaid, in the response filed to the eviction petition, it has been categorically averred that the present petitioner (tenant) has been paying rent regularly. 4. In the application filed seeking amendment, detailed averments have been made qua the alleged other co-sharers of the tenanted premises. In response to the application so filed, specifically in Paragraph-9, on merits, present respondent has categorically averred that the petitioner had been paying rent to the present respondent, details have been given Paragraph-9. In the replication filed, specifically to Paragraph-9, making of payments as rent by the present petitioner to the respondent, has not been denied. 5. in the aforesaid backdrop, the Rent Controller has rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petition on the ground that the same lacks bonafide, has been filed with an intent to protract litigation and once the respondent has admitted to be a co-sharer with respect to the tenanted premises, then he is not debarred from filing eviction petition under the Rent Act. 6. With respect to the landlord-tenant disputes, certain well settled principles of law on questions involved therein have been succinctly laid down in the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others, 3 ( 2025:HHC:29183 2018(2) SCC 352. The relevant extract is being reproduced here-in- under:- “11. There are some well-settled principles of law on the question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into consideration while deciding the question arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra. 11.1 First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2 Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord has sought defendant’s-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds. 11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580). 11.4 Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a  party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or 4 ( 2025:HHC:29183 how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140). 11.5. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved  in the proceeding. (See-Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 786). 11.6 Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See-Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr., 2016(3) SCC 296).” 7. Keeping in mind the aforementioned well settled principles of law and on examining the legality of the impugned order, I find that the impugned order dated 05.08.2025, passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, whereby an application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner seeking amendment of the reply filed to the eviction petition has been dismissed, is legally sustainable and hence deserves to be upheld. 8. In view of above, present petition is dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) August 28, 2025 (KS) Judge