IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 650 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.2.2010 ____________________________________________________ Sunil Sood …Petitioner. Versus Mohan Dutt Nangia …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The tenant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla in case No.46/2 of 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tenant in the reply to the ejectment petition has taken a specific objection that the landlord has rented out one set just below the premises just prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioner by way of amendment application intends to supply the particulars of the person who was inducted as tenant by the respondent prior to the filing of the petition and such particulars have been given in para-3 of the amendment application. ______________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 2. The admitted case of the petitioner is that he has already taken objection in the reply that before filing of the petition the landlord had inducted a tenant. In the amendment application the petitioner has given particulars of such tenant. The learned Rent controller has primarily decided the application on the ground that the trial has commenced and therefore in view of proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 CPC the amendment cannot be allowed. 3. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking amendment for supplying the name of the person who has been inducted as tenant by the respondent immediately prior to the filing of the petition. Therefore the amendment which the petitioner intends to incorporate is not required in view of the fact that the tenant has already taken objection in the reply as per learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has inducted a tenant in the building in question prior to the filing of the petition. It is a matter of evidence that new tenant has been inducted by the landlord in the premises; therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to prove this fact by leading evidence. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of disposal of main petition the CMP No.968/2009 is rendered infructuous. Interim order dated 23.11.2009 stands vacated. February 23, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge.