JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:­ “ It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be accepted and impugned Order dated 07.09.2020 passed by learned Rent Controller Shimla in Rent Petition No.147/2 of 2014 may be ordered to be set aside and consequently application being CNR No.HPSH 120023882019 (Registration No.1217/2019 under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be dismissed and application being CNR No. HPSH 12003491208 (Registration No.9004891/2018) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be allowed with costs throughout.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:­ The contesting respondent, Sanjay Kumar Sharma has filed an eviction petition on 20.11.2014, seeking eviction of one Shri Sanjay Kumar, son of Shri Jagan Nath (since dead) from shop No.112, situated on ground floor, Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of personal use and occupation to open a retail shop. The eviction petition was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the same was bad for non­joinder of necessary parties and that the premises were tenanted to Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath, 6, Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. as the landlord of the premises Shri Devinder Prakash had inducted said proprietorship concern as tenant. Respondent Sanjay Kumar took the stand that the tenanted premises was rented out to M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath, which firm was running a gym from the demised premises. 3. In the rejoinder, petitioner/landlord reasserted that it was respondent Sanjay Kumar who was running a local style gym in the rented premises, whereas the firm M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath was doing wholesale business of vegetable and fruits in another building of one Shri Sanjay Bhagra and as per the record of Municipal Corporation, it was Sanjay Kumar who was recorded as tenant of the demised premises, whereas proprietor of the firm M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath was Ashok Sharma. It was further the contention of the landlord that he had suffered an eviction order qua shop No.115/1 in Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. and therefore, the demised premises were bonafidely required by him for his personal use to set up his business. 4. It was further the contention of the landlord that he had suffered an eviction order qua shop No.115/1 in Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. and therefore, the demised premises were bonafidely required by him for his personal use to set up his business. 4. The issues in the matter stood framed on 29.11.2016, in which one of the issues framed is that whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties or not with onus upon the respondent. The evidence of the landlord was concluded on 24.07.2018. Thereafter, the case was listed for recording the evidence of the respondents on 30.08.2018, when respondents moved an application under Order 8, Rule 1­A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record certain statements of account. On 07.12.2018, present petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as respondents in the case on the ground that the demised premises were rented out by one Shri Devinder Prakash in the year 1995 to M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath through its proprietor and as initially the father of the present petitioners as well as respondent Sanjay Kumar, namely, Shri Jagan Nath was the proprietor of the said concern, therefore, after his death the proprietorship concern was being continued by all his sons including one Shri Ashok Sharma, who was dead. According to the present petitioners, the eviction petition was filed by the landlord in­connivance with Sanjay Kumar and they were not aware about the pendency of the eviction petition, but as soon as they came to know of the same in the first week of December, 2018, they filed the application for being impleading them as party respondents. The application was contested by the landlord, inter alia, on the ground that the filing of the application was abuse of the process of law and was filed by the applicants in-connivance with respondent Sanjay Kumar which was evident from the fact that the application was filed after four opportunities stood granted to the respondents to lead evidence. It was further the stand of the landlord that neither M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath nor the father of the applicants was inducted as tenant in the demised premises. It was further the stand of the landlord that neither M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath nor the father of the applicants was inducted as tenant in the demised premises. As per them, one of the applicants, Arun Sharma was working in H.P. State Co­operative Bank, whereas the other applicant, Pawan Kumar was settled in separate business and has nothing to do with the demise premises. 5. During the pendency of these proceedings, respondent Sanjay Kumar died. Accordingly, an application under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the landlord to bring on record his legal representatives i.e. his wife and children. By way of the order under challenge, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the present petitioners, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, for impleading them as party respondents in the case and allowed the application filed under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring on record the wife and children of deceased Sanjay Kumar as respondent in the eviction petition. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present proceedings. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that learned Rent Controller erred in not appreciating that it was M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath, a sole proprietorship firm which was the tenant in the premises in question and as the petitioners herein were the sons of Shri Jagan Nath who was actually carrying out the business from the demised premises and further as after the death of Shri Jagan Nath, business activities were being conducted from the demised premises by all the sons of Shri Jagan Nath including the present petitioners, therefore, non-impleadment of theirs as party respondents was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned order is otherwise also not sustainable as the same stood passed without any due application of mind and the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller were in excess of his jurisdiction as the same were likely to prejudice the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties framed on merit as also with regard to the maintainability of the eviction proceedings. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for setting aside of the impugned order and for allowing the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. No other point was urged. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ landlord has submitted that there was no infirmity in the order impugned, for the reason that the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord had closed his evidence on 24.07.2018 and thereafter, despite four opportunities having been granted to respondent Sanjay Kumar to lead evidence, the same was lead and other brothers of his who had no connection with the demised premises, moved the application filed under 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleading as the respondent. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the firm, M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath was tenant of the property and Sanjay Kumar was not a tenant in his individual capacity, was totally incorrect and unsubstantiated. Learned counsel submitted that respondent Sanjay Kumar (since deceased) had also taken a similar stand in his reply and accordingly an issue was framed in this regard and therefore also, as this was an issue which has to be decided by the learned Rent Controller, the filing of the application was nothing, but a delay tactic to prolong the adjudication of the rent petition. Learned counsel also submitted that the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller while dismissing the application, called for no interference, for the reason that it was rightly observed by the learned Rent Controller that nothing was placed on record by the present petitioners to demonstrate that they were members or partners of M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath or that they were in any manner carrying out any business activity from the demised premises. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the record of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, the demised premises were in possession of deceased Sanjay Kumar as tenant and therefore also the impugned order called for no interference, in terms whereof after the death of Sanjay Kumar, his legal representatives already stood substituted as the respondents. 9. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the record of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, the demised premises were in possession of deceased Sanjay Kumar as tenant and therefore also the impugned order called for no interference, in terms whereof after the death of Sanjay Kumar, his legal representatives already stood substituted as the respondents. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith as also the impugned order. 10. It is a matter of record and not in dispute that an issue has been framed by the learned Rent Controller with regard to the fact as to whether the rent petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties or not? Because this issue was framed on the objection which was taken in this regard by the respondent therein before the learned Rent Controller, but natural the onus is upon the respondent before the learned Rent Controller to prove this issue. It is also a matter of record and not disputed during the course of arguments that application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioners was filed after four opportunities were granted to the respondent to lead evidence. The eviction proceedings were filed in the month of November, 2014, whereas the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleadment of the present petitioners as respondents in the eviction petition was filed in the month of December, 2018. There is no cogent explanation given in the application as to what took the applicants four years to move an application for their impleadment as party respondents. Their contention that they were not aware of the proceedings cannot be accepted for the reason that if their version that the demised premises was in their possession and they were carrying out the business of the proprietorship firm in their capacity as the successor­in­interest of Late Shri Jagan Nath alongwith his other sons is to be believed, then the Court cannot believe that original respondent Sanjay Kumar did not apprise them about the filing of the eviction petition and they came to know about the same in terms mentioned in the application. The allegation of connivance between the landlord and respondent Sanjay Kumar is just bald and without any substantiation of the same with any material on record. 11. The allegation of connivance between the landlord and respondent Sanjay Kumar is just bald and without any substantiation of the same with any material on record. 11. In this background, when one peruses the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, one finds no infirmity therein. Learned Rent Controller while dismissing the application for impleadment, held that though admittedly the respondent in his original reply had submitted that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties on the ground that tenancy was created in the name of M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath, a proprietorship concern, however, the address of the firm was mentioned as 6, Sabji Mandi, Shimla, whereas the address of the demised premises was shop No.112, Ground Floor, Sabji Mandi, Shimla. Learned Rent Controller also held that the official record of Municipal Corporation demonstrated that the demised premises were recorded in possession of respondent Sanjay Kumar (since deceased) on annual rent of Rs.2,400/­ and the name of the owner of the premises was recorded as Devinder Prakash. Learned Rent Controller also held that it was apparent from the pleadings that the gym in the demised premises was being run by Late Sanjay Kumar, whereas M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath was in the business of fruit and vegetable Commission Agent. Learned Rent Controller also held that the allegations that the eviction petition was a result of connivance between the landlord and Sanjay Kumar, was not reflected from the record and there was nothing to suggest that the deceased respondent acted in­connivance with the landlord. Learned Rent Controller also held that the filing of the application at the stage when respondents had already availed four opportunities to lead evidence, demonstrated that the same was filed by the applicant with the intent to delay the adjudication of the petition, whereas the respondent originally impleaded was seriously contesting the petition. Learned Rent Controller also held that it was not the stand of the present petitioners that they were tenants to the exclusion of deceased respondent, but their specific stand was that the shop was in tenancy of a firm and they alongwith the deceased respondent were members of the firm and if their version was to be accepted as it was, then also as one of the members of the firm was a party respondent, therefore also the impleadment of the applicants was not necessary. 12. 12. These findings returned by the learned Rent Controller in the considered view of this Court are neither perverse nor contrary to the record as same are borne out from the record. This Court is also of the considered view that the filing of the application at the belated stage was just an attempt to delay the adjudication of the rent petition, more so in the light of the fact that in view of the stand taken by the original respondent, there already was an issue framed as to whether the rent petition was bad for non­joinder of necessary parties or not? 13. Therefore, as the Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly, dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.