1 2026:HHC:38626 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 18 of 2023 Decided on: 8.9.2026 Jawahar Lal & anr. … Petitioners Versus Thakur Bishamber Dass Chraitable Trust,through Pradeeep Kumar Katwal (through LRs) & others …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 18.11.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge-II Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. By way of order dated 18.11.2022, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 6 2 2026:HHC:38626 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the petitioners, in Civil Suit No.101/2012, titled as, ‘Thakur Bishamber Dass Charitable Trust versus Jawahar Lal & another’. 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. Necessary facts, as borne out from the record, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiff Thakur Bishamber Dass Charitable Trust Amb, through its Founder and Chairman, has filed the suit for vacant possession of the suit premises/shop marked by letters ABCD (measuring 3.60x9 meters), as shown in red colour, in the site plan, described as under:- North :Amb-Hamirpur PWD Road South: Land of Plaintiff Bishamber Dass East: Shop of Plaintiff Bishamber Dass West: Shop of Plaintiff Bishamber Dass situated over part of the land measuring 0-01-20 Hects., comprised in Khewat No. 638 min, Khatoni 722 min, and at present Khasra No. 1917 as entered in the Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 situated in village 3 2026:HHC:38626 Amb Khass, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una (HP) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the shop in question’), as well as, suit for recovery of rupees 4,550/- on account of rent, for the last seven months upto April 2012 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, till the realization of the final amount. 4.1 The suit has been filed, on the ground, that the plaintiff has created a trust of his property, vide registered Trust Deed, dated 8.8.2005, namely ‘Thakur Bishamber Dass Charitable Trust, Amb, District Una, H.P.’. Thakur Bishamber Dass was the founder and Chairman of the Trust. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff rented the suit premises to defendants, on monthly rent of Rs. 650/-, and the defendants are running the shop in question, under the name and style “Neelam General Store and Bartan Bhandar”. 4.2 The defendants, without the consent of the plaintiff, have also started business of property dealing and have unauthorizedly put the Board on the shop in question, without the permission of the plaintiff. The defendants are stated to have not paid the rent for the 4 2026:HHC:38626 last seven months. The plaintiff, thereafter, requested to vacate the premises and also served a registered AD/legal notice dated 4.4.2012, under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, upon the defendants, to vacate the possession of the suit premises. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to decree the suit. 6. The said suit was contested by the defendants, by filing written statement, by taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the plaintiff has got no enforceable cause of action; the plaint has not been verified in accordance with law, and the suit is liable to be dismissed; and the plaintiff-Trust is not the owner of the premises. 6. On merits, the suit has been contested, on the ground, that the plaintiff-Trust was never owner in possession of the shop in question, nor the plaintiff- Trust ever rented the shop in question to the defendant, and it was Bishamber Dass, who had rented the shop in 5 2026:HHC:38626 question to the defendants. As such, according to the defendants, no relationship of land lord and tenant ever existed between the plaintiff-Trust and defendants. 7. On the basis of aforesaid facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit. 8. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed the following issues, vide order dated 17.8.2013: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of suit premises/demised shop? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 4550/- on account of rent for last 7 months till April, 2012 along with interest @ 12% p.a.? OPP 2 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action? OPD 7. Whether the plaint has not been verified in accordance with law? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non serving of notice U/s. 106 of Transfer of Property Act PoPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff is not owner of demised premises? OPD 10. Relief. 6 2026:HHC:38626 9. Subsequently, when the plaintiff has closed its evidence and the lis was fixed for defendants’ evidence, then, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed, by the defendants, for amendment of the pleadings, by adding para-8 in the preliminary objections of the written statement, which is reproduced as under: “8. That Amb has been declared and notified as Nagar Panchayat vide notification No. UD-A(1)2/2012, dated 27.10.2020 and the provision of HP Urban Rent Control Act are applicable to suit premises hence the present suit is in contravention to the HP Urban Rent Control Act and no enforceable decree can be passed.” 10. The said amendment is stated to be not made earlier, despite due diligence, as defendants could not anticipate the aforesaid supervening event. 11. The application has been contested by denying the factual position, as mentioned, in the application. 12. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.11.2022, has dismissed the application. 13. Aggrieved from the impugned order, dated 18.11.2022, defendants have filed the present petition, before this Court, assailing the order, by virtue of which, 7 2026:HHC:38626 application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been dismissed. 14. According to the defendants, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the proposed amendment will not change the nature or character of the suit. 15. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, appearing for the defendants has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, by setting aside the order, passed by the learned trial Court, and application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC may kindly be allowed. 16. Per contra, Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff has opposed the prayer on the ground that although, the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed, after commencement of the trial, but, proposed amendment is inconsequential, as applicability of the Rent Act, during the pendency of the suit is inconsequential. 8 2026:HHC:38626 17. Admittedly, the proposed amendment is based upon the notification, which was issued by the State, on 27.10.2020, by virtue of which, Amb has been declared and notified as Nagar Panchayat, vide notification No. UD-A(1)2/2012, dated 27.10.2020, and the provisions of HP Urban Rent Control Act have been made applicable, in the area. 18 If the facts and circumstance of the present case are seen in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rajender Bansal and others versus Bhuru (dead) through LRs’, reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 202, then, the order passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. Relevant paragraph-18 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “18. From the aforesaid discussion in Atma Ram Mittal, Vineet Kumar, Ram Saroop Rai, Ramesh Chandra and Shri Kishan alias Krishna Kumar cases, the apparent principles which can be culled out, forming the ratio decidendi of those cases, are as under: i) Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the law applicable on the date of filing of the suit will continue to apply until suit is disposed of or adjudicated. 9 2026:HHC:38626 ii) If during the pendency of the suit, Rent Act becomes applicable to the premises in question, that would be of no consequence and it would not take away the jurisdiction of civil court to dispose of a suit validly instituted. iii) In order to oust the jurisdiction of civil court, there must be a specific provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of those cases also which were validly instituted before the date when protection of Rent Act became available in respect of the said area/premises/tenancy. iv) In case aforesaid position is not accepted and the protection of the Rent Act is extended even in respect of suit validly instituted prior in point of time when there was no such protection under the Act, it will have the consequence of making the decree, that is obtained prior to the Rent Act becoming applicable to the said area/premises, inexecutable after the application of these Rent Act in respect of such premises. This would not be in consonance with the legislative intent.” 19. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, titled as, ‘Shankarlal Nadani versus Sohanlal Jain’, Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2455 of 2022. 20. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajender Bansal and Shankarlal Nadani’s cases 10 2026:HHC:38626 (supra), it can be said that the lis was instituted, in the year 2012, and the Rent Act was made applicable in the year 2020, vide notification dated 27.10.2020, then the proposed amendment has no relevance to the controversy, involved in the present case. 21. In view of above, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 22. 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. 23. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 8.9.2026 Judge Kalpana