1 2026:HHC:35766 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 9 of 2025 Decided on: 21.8.2026 Smt. Salochna … Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anirudh R.H. Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in CMA No. 695 of 2014, in case No.2/20/2017, titled as, ‘Salochna Devi versus Ashok Kumar. 2. By way of order dated 25.10.2024, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 6 2 2026:HHC:35766 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the petitioner, in the above titled rent petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. The land lady/applicant has filed the application for ejectment of tenant/respondent, under Sections 14(3) (a)(i) and 14(3)(d) and 14(2)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act No. 25 of 1987, on account of non-payment of rent and on the bonafide requirement of rented premised, as he wants to settle her husband and son Somil Gautam, who is having a degree of Electronics and Telecommunications. 5. The said application has been contested by the tenant, by filing reply. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the matter was adjourned for PWs. However, on 27.5.2024, the land lady has moved an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the rent application. 6. The amendment has been sought, on the ground, that during pendency of the petition, her son Somil 3 2026:HHC:35766 Gautam got selected in Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services. According to the applicant, she being a simpleton lady, was not aware of the technicalities of law to bring on record the subsequent developments, about gaining employment by her son, during the subsistence of the petition. However, on 18.5.2024, when she met her counsel and discussed the status of the case, then, she disclosed that her son Somil Gautam has now been selected in the H.P. Administrative Services, upon which, the counsel advised that the petition needs to be amended. 7. On the basis of above facts, she has sought the deletion of lines “her son Sh. Somil Gautam who is unemployed and having a degree of Electronic & Telecommunication and he he has no source of income to pull on his life.” Further in the same paragraph, the applicant wants to delete the words “son” and, in its place, wants to substitute the word “husband”. 8. Similarly, in para No. 20, the applicant wants to delete the sentence “and due to unemployment of her son the applicant is unable to pull on her life 4 2026:HHC:35766 nowadays”," and in its place wants to substitute the words “the husband of the applicant is retired from IPH services from Himachal Pradesh Government and the husband of the applicant wants to utilize his skill and experience by opening consultancy firm and their post- retirement avocation requires large space for demonstration and project making. The aforesaid business/avocation of the applicant's retired husband cannot be commenced in a small space, and the shop premises in question are bonafidely required. The applicant and her retired husband, with a view to having an independent source of income, by way of his consultancy work, require the shop premises along with other shops, which, in turn can be converted into a larger space". The proposed amendment is stated to be based upon the subsequent developments. 9. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. 10. On the basis of stand, so taken, by the parties, the learned trial Court has considered the application and rejected the same, mainly on the ground that the 5 2026:HHC:35766 case is at the stage of arguments, and the trial has commenced on 7.5.2018. The findings, so recorded, by the learned Rent Controller, are being challenged by way of present petition. 11. When, a question was put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/landlady as to how the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are applicable in the rent petition, which are being decided by the persona designata, and not by the Court, he has relied upon the decision of Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a case titled as, “Banke Ram versus Smt. Sarasti Devi”, reported in AIR 1977 Punjab & Haryana 158 Full Bench. 12. With due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the aforesaid case nowhere helps the case of the petitioner, as the question, which was referred to, before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, was with regard to the requirement of the rent application. The question, which has been referred to the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, is reproduced as under: 6 2026:HHC:35766 "Whether a landlord applying for the eviction of his tenant on the ground con- tained in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph (i) of S. 13 (3) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act), i. e. for his own use and occupation, has or has not to specifically plead in his application the contents of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) aforesaid, which put a rider on the right of the landlord to get the eviction of this tenant from the premises even for his own use unless he succeeds in prov- ing that he was not in occupation of an- other residential building in the same urban area and that the had not vacated any such building after the commence- ment of the Act without any sufficient cause." 13. The said reference has been answered by the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court by holding that it is essential for the landlord to plead the ingredients of sub-clause (b) and (c) of paragraph (i) of S. 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The applicability of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not before the Hon’ble Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, as such, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner, on the basis of said decision. 14. The application is totally silent about the fact as to when her son got selected in the H.P. Administrative Services. Moreover, considering the stage 7 2026:HHC:35766 of the proceedings, i.e. arguments, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, as it amounts to denovo trial of the rent petition, on behalf of land lord/applicant, before this Court, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Even otherwise, the defendants are before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference is very limited. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan”, 2025 INSC 606" has elaborately discussed the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: "9. Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227." 17. In a recent decision in "Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa 8 2026:HHC:35766 Naidu & Ors.”, 2026 INSC 434", the scope of interference has again been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- "35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this. Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal." 18. Judging the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the rival contentions of the parties and drawn the conclusion, which cannot be interfered by this Court, by holding that the learned trial 9 2026:HHC:35766 Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, vested in it. As such, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 19. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. (Virender Singh) 21.8.2026 Judge Kalpana