Himachal Pradesh High Court
Puran Prakash Goel & Another vs Chaman Lal Vaidya on 8 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:26791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.674 of 2022 a/w
CMPMO No.70 of 2023
Decided on: 08.08.2025
.
CMPMO No.674 of 2022
Puran Prakash Goel & another ... Petitioners
Versus
Chaman Lal Vaidya ... Respondent
CMPMO No.70 of 2022
Puran Prakash Goel & another ... Petitioners
Versus
Chaman Lal Vaidya ... Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Present none.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
As both these petitions arise out of the same rent
proceedings which have been initiated against the present petitioners
by the land owners under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh
Urban Rent Control Act, they are being decided vide common
judgment.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 16.11.2022,
in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Order
7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed and also
by an order passed by the learned Rent Controller, dated
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:26791
16.11.2022, in an application filed under Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure by the land owners, in terms thereof, the application has
.
been allowed and the prayer of the applicants therein to carry out
certain amendments in the petition has been allowed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners herein submitted
that the eviction petition was vague, incomplete, was not containing
the details of the demised premises and it was in this backdrop that
the petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the
Civil Procedure Code. As per him, the application has been
erroneously rejected by the learned Court below.
4. Before proceeding further, it may be clarified that in
these proceedings, this Court is not dwelling on the issue, as to
whether in an eviction petition an application under Order 7, Rule
11 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable and this issue is kept
open. A perusal of the order passed on the application by the
learned Rent Controller demonstrates that the learned Rent
Controller was pleased to dismiss the application by inter alia
holding that whereas a separate application already stood filed by
the land owner for the amendment of the petition and further,
simply because khasra numbers of the demised premises were not
mentioned in the petition, it could not be held that on this count
alone, the eviction petition was not disclosing any cause of action.
5. The findings returned by the learned Rent Controller, in
the considered view of this Court, do not call for any interference.
2025:HHC:26791
This is for the reason that it is a matter of record that an application
stood filed by the land owner under Section 151 of the Civil
.
Procedure Code, seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller
to carry out certain amendments in the petition which was allowed
by the learned Court below vide order of even date, i.e. 16.11.2022.
6. Further, this Court concurs with the findings returned
by the learned Court below that mere non mention of certain khasra
numbers per se cannot be so fatal so as to throw the petitioners in
terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the count
that the petition did not disclose any cause of action.
7. It is settled law that cause of action is the bundle of
facts which a party has to prove in order to obtain a decree in its
favour. Therefore, mere remiss in mentioning of the khasra numbers
cannot be said to be equivalent to non-disclosure of the cause of
action at all in an eviction petition.
8. Now, coming to the other order passed on 16.11.2022, in
terms whereof, the application of the land owner for carrying out
certain amendments in the rent petition was allowed, this Court is of
the considered view that in the light of the reasons mentioned in the
order passed by the Court, the same also do not call for any
interference. Needful was done by the learned Court below in the
interest of justice and to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, otherwise
the net result would have had been that the land owner would have
had withdrawn the petition with liberty to file a fresh on the same
2025:HHC:26791
cause by incorporating the needful.
9. In the light of above findings, as this Court does not
.
finds any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned
Rent Controller in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, these petitions are dismissed. However, it is
clarified that the observations made by this Court are only for the
purpose of determination of the these applications and the same
shall have no bearing as far as the adjudication on the rent petitions
is concerned on the strength of the defence that has been taken by
the present petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any
also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 08, 2025
(Rishi)
