JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. Petitioners are successors-in-interest of original respondent-Sh. Pradeep Kumar. Their application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the reply filed by the original respondent to the petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, has been turned down by the learned Rent Controller on 26.06.2019. Feeling aggrieved, instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by them. 2. Relevant factual position:- 2(i). Present respondent filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act for eviction of one Sh. Pradeep Kumar from the premises in question on 31.12.2010. 2(ii). Reply by Sh. Pradeep Kumar to the above petition was filed on 10.05.2011. In respect of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, following averments were made in different paras of the reply:- “Preliminary Objections 2. That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to this petition. Original father of the replying respondent was tenant under one Sh. Hira Lal. After the death of late Sh. Kapuria, the present replying respondent had inherited the tenancy rights. However, the petitioner has never informed regarding the purchase of the premises in question from Sh. Hira Lal in any manner. Thus the replying respondent is still tenant under Sh. Hira Lal and not the present petitioner. On Merits 2. In reply to para-2, it is submitted that the petition is bad for want of impeding all the necessary parties. As submitted above, initially the father of the replying respondent was inducted as a tenant by Sh. Hira Lal in the year. After the death of Kapuria, father of the respondent, the present respondent is occupying the premises in question under the original owner Sh. Hira Lal. The petitioner has failed to disclose as to how he is claiming himself to be the sole owner of the outhouse in question. 5. In reply to para-5, it is submitted that the replying respondent is a tenant in the accommodation in question. 11. In reply to para-11, it is admitted that the monthly rent is Rs.100/- and electricity and water charges are paid according to the consumption. 12. ………………………….. 5. In reply to para-5, it is submitted that the replying respondent is a tenant in the accommodation in question. 11. In reply to para-11, it is admitted that the monthly rent is Rs.100/- and electricity and water charges are paid according to the consumption. 12. ………………………….. As a matter of fact since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the fact that on what account the petitioner is progressing further disclose the details of the completion plan and order of sanction for raising this building. 13. That the contents of para-13 as alleged are not disputed. The monthly rent is Rs.100/-” 2(iii). Sh. Pradeep Kumar died during the year 2011. His legal heirs, i.e. the present petitioners, were brought on record on 19.06.2013. 2(iv). Issues were framed in presence of learned counsel for the present petitioners/legal representatives of original respondent-Sh. Pradeep Kumar on 22.08.2013. Evidence on behalf of the landlord/present respondent was concluded on 26.05.2018 and matter was fixed for evidence of RWs on 19.06.2018. RWs were not present on 19.06.2018, therefore, last opportunity was granted to the present petitioners to produce their witnesses on 25.07.2018. On the next date, i.e. 25.07.2018, petitioners instead of leading evidence, moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC. This application was eventually allowed on 17.08.2018 and the petitioners were directed to produce their witnesses on 29.10.2018 by way of final opportunity. On the next date, i.e. 29.10.2018, present petitioners informed that they intended to change their counsel. For such reason, further opportunity to lead evidence was granted to them and the matter was fixed for their evidence on 27.12.2018. Yet another final opportunity for producing evidence was accorded to the present petitioners on 27.12.2018 for 07.03.2019. No RW was present on 07.03.2019, however, an application was moved by the present petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the reply filed by their predecessor-ininterest Sh. Pradeep Kumar. This application has been turned down by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.06.2019. It is this order, which has been assailed in the instant petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Contentions:- 3(i). Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the amendment has been necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is this order, which has been assailed in the instant petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Contentions:- 3(i). Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the amendment has been necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel submitted that the sum total of reply filed by the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners does not reflect his actual stand in respect of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Averments and admissions made in different paras of the reply (extracted earlier) about original respondent-Sh. Pradeep Kumar being a tenant on the premises in question, are contrary to the fundamental stand that there exists no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. It is further submitted that Sh. Pradeep Kumar-predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was suffering from dementia and therefore, he could not project clear picture in his reply about there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since different paras in the reply are not consistent in respect of describing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, it was necessary to take a categoric stand refuting the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel further contended that no prejudice will be caused to the landlord/present respondent in case such an amendment is allowed even at this stage. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others Versus Kiran Appaso Swami and others, (2007) 5 SCC 602 and State of Bihar and others Versus Modern Tent House and another, (2017) 8 SCC 567 . 3(ii). Per contra, learned counsel for the present respondent/landlord submitted that present is not a case where the amendment application moved by the petitioners can be allowed. The original respondent Sh. Pradeep Kumar has taken a categoric stand as reflected in the reply filed by him. 3(ii). Per contra, learned counsel for the present respondent/landlord submitted that present is not a case where the amendment application moved by the petitioners can be allowed. The original respondent Sh. Pradeep Kumar has taken a categoric stand as reflected in the reply filed by him. Learned counsel further submitted that though there is no confusion or inconsistency in the stand taken by the original respondent in the reply, yet in view of preliminary objection No.2 taken in the original reply, it will even otherwise be open for the petitioners to contend before the learned Rent Controller that they are not the tenants of present respondent over the premises in question. The relationship between the parties is still to be determined and adjudicated upon by the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel also argued that petitioners have not at all cogently explained their filing the amendment application in 2019, when the evidence of the landlord/present respondent was already over and repeated opportunities by way of last opportunity were granted to the petitioners/ successors of Sh. Pradeep Kumar to lead their evidence. He has further submitted that allowing this application at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the respondent/ landlord as it would amount to letting the petitioners withdraw the admissions made by their predecessor in the original reply. Relying upon (1986) 4 SCC 155 , titled Bal Kishan Versus Om Parkash and another, it has been further contended that instant application moved on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased Sh. Pradeep Kumar, seeking to amend the personal pleas taken by him in the original reply, is not at all maintainable. 4. Observations:- 4(i). The factual position is not in dispute that reply to the petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act was filed by Sh. Pradeep Kumar/ predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners on 10.05.2011. The present petitioners were brought on record as his legal representatives on 19.06.2013. No steps were taken by them at the relevant time for amendment of the reply. 4(ii). Issues in the instant case were framed in presence of the petitioners on 22.08.2013. No effort was made by the petitioners even at that stage to seek amendment in the reply filed by their predecessor Sh. Pradeep Kumar. 4(iii). The evidence of the landlord/present respondent was over by 26.05.2018. 4(ii). Issues in the instant case were framed in presence of the petitioners on 22.08.2013. No effort was made by the petitioners even at that stage to seek amendment in the reply filed by their predecessor Sh. Pradeep Kumar. 4(iii). The evidence of the landlord/present respondent was over by 26.05.2018. Thereafter, the matter was repeatedly fixed for evidence of the present petitioners. In fact, the record shows that repeated opportunities were granted to them by way of final opportunity to lead evidence. It was on one of such date granted to them to produce their evidence by way of last opportunity that the petitioners moved an application for amendment of the reply. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners clearly reflects that neither they were diligent in pursuing their case nor their actions were bonafide. If, according to them, there was such a necessity to amend the reply, then recourse to appropriate provisions had to be resorted at the relevant time and not at the belated stage when the evidence of the landlord (respondent herein) was concluded and repeated opportunities by way of last opportunity were being granted to them to adduce their evidence. Allowing of such an application at this stage would definitely cause prejudice to the respondent/landlord. Also, the clock in such an eventuality would be pushed behind to 2011, i.e. at the stage of filing of reply. 4(iv). There is also considerable force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that by means of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners are trying to withdraw certain admissions made by their predecessor-in-interest in his reply dated 23.03.2011 filed to the petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, which would cause prejudice to the respondent. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 4 SCC 332 , titled M. Revanna Versus Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others, held that leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally new, inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. It was also held that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 virtually prevents allowing an application for amendment after commencement of trial unless Court comes to conclusion that in spite of diligence, matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial. It was also held that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 virtually prevents allowing an application for amendment after commencement of trial unless Court comes to conclusion that in spite of diligence, matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial. Relevant para from the judgment reads as under:- “7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.” It is also apposite at this stage to take note of (1986) 4 SCC 155 , titled Bal Kishan Versus Om Parkash and another, wherein it was observed that Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC does not authorise legal representative of a deceased defendant to take those pleas, which were personal to the deceased. The petitioners being the legal representatives of deceased Sh. Pradeep Kumar, could not have raised any pleas, which were personal to him. Fact remains that the petitioners have not at all explained the delay in moving the application seeking amendment of the reply filed by their predecessor-ininterest in the year 2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were brought on record as legal heirs of deceased in 2013. The callous and indifferent conduct of the petitioners evident from order sheets, speaks volume about their lack of due diligence. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were brought on record as legal heirs of deceased in 2013. The callous and indifferent conduct of the petitioners evident from order sheets, speaks volume about their lack of due diligence. The petitioners allowed the trial to commence and tried to delay it on one or the other pretext. Evidence of the landlord was concluded on 26.05.2018. It was only during one out of many repeated opportunities granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence, that they moved an application on 07.03.2019 to amend the reply filed by their predecessor in 2011. Such a recourse would not only allow them to withdraw the admissions made by their predecessor, but would also tantamount to turn back the clock to 2011 in 2021, causing prejudice to the present respondent-landlord. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is clarified that observations made above are only for adjudication of instant petition and will have no bearing on merits of the matter. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 07.04.2021.