JUDGMENT : By way of this Revision Petition, the petitioner/tenant has challenged order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P., in the eviction proceedings initiated against him by contesting respondents/landlord, in terms whereof an application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for recalling petitioner/PW3 Rajinder Kumar Sood for the purpose of further cross-examination has been rejected. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under: An application under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner/ tenant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’), on the ground that an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of reply filed by him was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.11.2020, therefore, it was necessary to further cross-examine PW3 as statement of this witness stood recorded on 16.05.2019, i.e. before the amendment was allowed. 3. The application was resisted by the non-applicants/ landlords, on the ground that there was no necessity for cross-examination of plaintiff/PW3 on the grounds mentioned in the application as the genesis of filing the application for amendment of the reply itself was the cross-examination of PW3. The application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller, which has resulted in filing of this petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that in terms of application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, the tenant was allowed to amend its reply to the Eviction Petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that in terms of application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, the tenant was allowed to amend its reply to the Eviction Petition. By pointing out to the application dated 28.08.2017, filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure code, learned Senior Counsel submitted that preliminary objection No.10 was allowed to be added by way of amendment to the reply which was to the effect that the Eviction Petition was liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that landlord who had obtained possession of another building or rented land under the provisions of clause (a) and clause (b) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act was not entitled to apply again under the same clause for possession of another building of same class or rented land and in the present case, petitioner No.2/landlord No.2 had obtained possession of western side of shop No.93 on the top floor of Mall Road, Shimla, which was in possession of one Gopal Dass Verma. Besides this, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the amendments which were further allowed to be incorporated in the reply were to the effect that the petition was also liable to be dismissed on the ground that landlord No.2 had obtained possession of one shop in ground floor of building No.106, Lower Bazar Shimla, by filing an Eviction Petition, which fact was admitted by him during the course of his cross-examination which was thereafter let out to Oriental Bank of Commerce. Learned Senior Counsel stated that this act also disentitled the landlords to file and maintain the present petition. Learned Senior Counsel argued that once amendments were allowed to be incorporated in the reply, further cross-examination of the landlord, PW3 Rajinder Kumar Sood was necessary on these aspects of the matter and by dismissal of the application in terms of the impugned order by learned Rent Controller, this extremely important right of the tenants has been wrongly denied to them. Learned Senior Counsel argued that there was concealment of fact in the Rent Petition with regard to the premises in the possession of Gopal Dass and as amendment was permitted to be incorporated in reply in this regard, therefore also, further cross-examination of PW3 on this issue was necessary, which important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Court below. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel argued that present petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the application filed before the learned Rent Controller be allowed, as prayed for. During the course of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments: “1) Vijay Kapoor and another Versus Maya Ram, AIR 1998 Himachal Pradesh 15. 2) Satinder Singh Versus Sukhdev, AIR 1999 Himachal Pradesh 72. 3) Smt. M.M. Amonkar and others Versus Dr. S.A. Johari, (1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 354. 5. In Vijay Kapoor and another Versus Maya Ram, AIR 1998 Himachal Pradesh 15, this Court in a case where the petition for eviction of tenant was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and the appeal of the tenant was dismissed, on the facts of the case held that subsequent events brought on record show that the bonafide requirement, if any, existing on the date of filing of the eviction petition no longer subsisted and therefore, the landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of the tent. 6. In Satinder Singh Versus Sukhdev, AIR 1999 Himachal Pradesh 72, this Court was dealing with an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in terms whereof an application filed by the defendant/petitioner, under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for recalling the plaintiff, who was examined as PW3 for being further cross-examined, was rejected. In the said case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he was owner-in-possession of the suit land. The defendant had filed written statement, refuting the allegations and had set up a case that he was owner-in-possession of the suit land. In the said case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he was owner-in-possession of the suit land. The defendant had filed written statement, refuting the allegations and had set up a case that he was owner-in-possession of the suit land. In the application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the case put up was that the plaintiff had worked as a labourer with the defendant upon the suit land and plaintiff had issued two receipts in connection with the charges for the work done by him in the land of the defendant and said receipts had been misplaced and could not be brought to the notice of the plaintiff when he was examined as PW3. It was in these circumstances that the recalling of the plaintiff for cross-examination was sought. In the facts of the case, this Court set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court by holding that the parties should have all opportunities to produce the best of the material in their possession and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the material is neither relevant nor credible, it is always open for the Court to assessed the evidence on its own merit. 7. In Smt. M.M. Amonkar and others Versus Dr. S.A. Johari, (1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 354, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power to recall and examine any witness at any stage of the suit under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code was to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. 8. The petition has been opposed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that the application was rightly rejected by the learned Rent Controller, as there was no necessity of cross-examination of PW3, for the reason that the factum of the said two shops having got vacated was never disputed by Rajinder Kumar Sood and therefore, the effect thereof has to be seen at the time of arguments on the Rent Petition. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petition was filed in the year 2012 and the shop in possession of Gopal Dass referred to above was surrendered by him in the year 2019. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petition was filed in the year 2012 and the shop in possession of Gopal Dass referred to above was surrendered by him in the year 2019. This fact had earlier also come in the statement of PW3 Rajinder Kumar and therefore also, on this point there was no need of cross-examination of this witness. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that in his cross-examination, Rajinder Kumar had clearly stated that the shop vacated by Gopal Dass was under lock and key and that the same had not been put to any use as at the time of his cross-examination. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments: 1.) Vaidraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs. Versus Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 (4) Supreme Court Cases 410. 2.) K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275. 9. In Vaidraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs. Versus Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 (4) Supreme Court Cases 410, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness, but it is ultimately within the Court’s discretion to allow such an application or not. 10. In K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.” 11. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.” 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 12. The Eviction Petition has been filed by landlords, namely, Vijay Kumar Sood and Rajinder Kumar Sood with regard to building No.93, The Mall Shimla/106, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The grounds for eviction are that the shop in question under the tenancy of the tenants was bonafidely required by petitioner No.2 for his personal use and occupation with a view to start his separate and independent business. It stands mentioned in the Eviction Petition that the landlords are coowners of upper two storeys of building bearing Municipal No.93, the Mall Shimla and three lower storeys of building No.106, Lower Bazar, Shimla are owned by their sons Ajay Kumar and Amit Kumar. The petitioners, as partners, are doing retail business of pickles oils and Ayurvedic medicines in a shop located in ground floor and first floor of building No.106 and they are tenants of Dr. Ajay Kumar and Amit Kumar on payment of annual rent. It is further mentioned in the Eviction Petition that off late relations between brothers have become strained. The owner of tenanted premises Dr. Ajay Kumar has been pressurizing the Eviction petitioners to hand over possession of tenanted premises to him as he and his wife who is also a Doctor, want to start their own medical practice in the same. Thereafter, the brothers i.e. the landlords have decided to part company amicably and start their own and independent and separate business on The Mall Shimla. The rented premises/shop in question was bonafidely required by petitioner No.2 and other adjoining shop in the possession and under the tenancy of Gopal Dass is required by petitioner No.1 and for which a separate petition was also being filed on similar grounds against the said tenants. 13. The rented premises/shop in question was bonafidely required by petitioner No.2 and other adjoining shop in the possession and under the tenancy of Gopal Dass is required by petitioner No.1 and for which a separate petition was also being filed on similar grounds against the said tenants. 13. A perusal of the averments mentioned in the Eviction Petition thus demonstrate that it is clearly mentioned therein that the rented premises/shop was required by petitioner No.2 Rajinder Kumar Sood, whereas adjoining shop which was in possession and under tenancy of Gopal Dass was required by petitioner No.1 Vijay Kumar Sood. 14. In this background, it cannot be said that there was any nondisclosure of important facts in the Eviction Petition as was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/tenants qua the premises in occupation of Gopal Dass. Further, a perusal of the cross-examination of PW3 Rajinder Kumar demonstrates that the factum of the said premises having been vacated by Gopal Dass has been admitted by him. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that effect thereof is something which has to be gone into by the learned Rent Controller at the time of the hearing of the petition. But on this count, the cross-examination of PW3 is not necessary. 15. Besides this, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller demonstrates that it has been held therein, while rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for cross-examination of PW3, that as the amendments in the reply were primarily allowed on the basis of the cross-examination of PW3, in that backdrop also there was no necessity to recall PW3 for his cross-examination. These findings returned by the learned Rent Controller are correct findings. In fact, a perusal of the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for amendment in the reply demonstrates that the genesis of filing the application was the cross-examination of petitioner No.2 Rajinder Kumar, as is apparent and evident from Para4 of the application. Therefore, as the basis of the carrying out the amendment was the cross-examination of PW3, it is not understood as to what not necessitates the recalling of this witness for his further cross-examination, because it is not as if something has now been incorporated in the reply, regarding which there is no deposition made by PW3 in his cross-examination. 16. Therefore, as the basis of the carrying out the amendment was the cross-examination of PW3, it is not understood as to what not necessitates the recalling of this witness for his further cross-examination, because it is not as if something has now been incorporated in the reply, regarding which there is no deposition made by PW3 in his cross-examination. 16. In view of the findings which have been reiterated hereinabove, the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also do not further the cause of the petitioner. 17. In these circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the application by the learned Rent Controller is completely justified as the petitioners herein were not able to make out any case for recalling of PW3 for his further cross-examination. 18. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.