JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The demised premises, occur, in Shop No.40 in a building, built upon Khasra No.480, 481, 482, situated at Ward No.8, Chhota Chowk, Nahan, H.P. The landlords of the aforesaid premises is/are one Aruna Bansal, and, Smt. Usha Bansal, and, the petitioner herein, is tenant therein. The ground for eviction, reared, in the apposite petition for eviction instituted before the learned Rent Controller concerned is extracted hereinafter: “17(a)(1)..That the property consisting of two shops and stair case consisting of khasra numbers 482, 481 and 480, situated in Bazzar Chhota, Chowk, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., Mohal Ranital, is the property of the petitioner and proforma respondent. The petitioner and proforma respondent have got the property from their husband, who are real brothers. The petitioner and proforma respondent through mutual settlement divided the property in two parts, whereby shop built over khasra No.481 is given to proforma respondent and the shop in question built over khasra No.482 is given to petitioner. The petitioner presently residing at Chandigarh, with her husband, therefore, she has authorised profroma respondent to receive rent from tenant-respondent No.1, and who is receiving the rent from respondent No.1 on behalf of petitioner. The premises is required by the petitioner bonafidely for the use as an office or consulting room by her son Shri Ankish Bansal, who intends to start practise as an Architect in the tenanted premises. The users would be the landlord for establishing business/office of Architect for her son Shri Ankish Bansal. The son of the petitioner Shri Ankish Bansal is not occupying in the Urban Area of Nahan Town any other building for use as office consulting room. The son of the petitioner Shri Ankish Bansal has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this At in the Urban Area of Nahan Town.” 2. The demised premises, apparently, given its being designated as Shop No.40, is, hence a non residential premises. The son of the petitioner Shri Ankish Bansal has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this At in the Urban Area of Nahan Town.” 2. The demised premises, apparently, given its being designated as Shop No.40, is, hence a non residential premises. The afore extracted ground, of eviction, reared by the landlord vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, an occupant therein as a tenant, is visibly, in consonance, with the provisions cast under Section 14(3) (d), of, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter:- “(d) in the case of any [residential and non residential building], if he requires it for use as an office, or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer, an architect, a dentist, an engineer, a veterinary surgeon or a medical practitioner, including a practitioner of Ayurveduc, Unani or Homeopathic System of Medicine or for the residence of [his son or daughter] who is married, if- (i) his [son or daughter] as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence, as the case may be; and (ii) his [son or daughter] as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned : Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period, agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this subsection before the expiry of such period : Provided further that where the landlord has obtained possession of any building or rented land under the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b), he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said clause for the possession of any other building of the same class or rented land: Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of any building under the provisions of clause (d), he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said clause for the use of, or for the residence of the same son, as the case may be.” It is also apt to extract the provisions sub section (6), to Section 14 of the Act:- “(6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall be made under this section on the ground specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (3) unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of such acquisition.” Since, at this stage no evidence has surged-forth qua the Bachelors degree of Architecture, obtained, by one Ankish Bansal, lacking in authenticity, thereupon, when hence Ankish Bansal is averred to be the landlord's/landlady's son, hence, the non residential demised premises concerned, when is espoused to be bonafide required, by the landlord/landlady for enabling, its being used, as an office, and, a consulting room by her son, for, his commencing practise therefrom, as an Architect, hence, the mandate, of, the provisions subsequent thereto comprised, in clause (i) and (ii) and provisos thereof rather alone, enjoined evidentiary compliance therewith. However, during the pendency of the rent petition concerned, the tenant/petitioner herein instituted an application, before the Rent Controller concerned, application whereof was cast, under, the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein he sought leave of the Court, to, introduce in his reply to the rent petition, the hereinafter extracted amendments:- “That the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner/landlord/landlady has acquired the premises by transfer through Gift along with proforma respondent No.2 and further on mutual settlement within five years of such transfer.” However, the learned Rent Controller, declined, relief vis-a-vis the tenant/petitioner herein, and, proceeded to dismiss his application, hence, the petitioner/tenant being aggrieved therefrom, has instituted the instant Civil Revision before this Court. 3. The effort on the part of the tenant, to seek the leave of the Court to beget the aforesaid amendment, in his reply, has been aptly declined besides frustrated, by the learned Rent Controller concerned, given the amendment strived by the tenant, rather falling within the ambit of sub-section (3), and, of, sub section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, provisions besides proviso thereof, stand extracted hereinabove. However, the applicability or attraction, of the aforesaid provisions borne in the Act, is only upon the non residential demised premises concerned, (i) rather being pleaded to be bonafide required by the landlord, for his, own occupation, and, also with obviously the mandate, of, sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, hence, made singularly applicable with specificity vis-a-vis sub section (3), (ii) thereupon, sub section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, is, obviously applicable, only, upon the ground of eviction reared, in the apposite petition, hence falling within the ambit of sub-section (3) of Section 14, of the Act. However, as aforestated, with the afore extracted ground, of, eviction reared in the eviction petition, hence not, falling within the domain of sub-section (3)(a) of Section 14 of Act, (iii) thereupon, the mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 14, of the Act, when begets attraction singularly vis-a-vis sub section (3)(a) of Section 14 of the Act, and, rather is unattractable vis-a-vis, the ground of eviction reared, in the hereat apposite eviction petition, (iv) ground whereof contrarily comes, within the ambit of sub-section (3) (d) of Section 14 of the Act, vis-a-vis latter clause (ii), the mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, is not made applicable, (v) thereupon, the amendment, strived, by the tenant/petitioner herein, by invoking the mandate of sub-section (6), of, Section 14 of the Act, when is palpably outside mandate thereof, thereupon, the declining, of, the apposite leave by the learned Rent Controller concerned, vis-a-vis the tenant, is both apt and just. 4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned order is affirmed and maintained. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 10th April, 2018. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records, if any, received, be sent back forthwith to the concerned quarter.