JUDGMENT : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller-III, Shimla in Rent Case No.87/2019 (RBT: 254-2 of 2023/2019), whereby the application of the petitioner for amendment of reply under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “Code”) has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner and respondent shall hereafter be referred to as tenant and landlord respectively. 3. The landlord originally filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “Rent Act”) against one Sh. Satish Sood on the grounds of arrears of rent and personal bonafide requirement, which is pending on the files of learned Rent Controller-III, Shimla as Case No.87/2019 (RBT: 254-2 of 2023/2019). 4. Sh. Satish Sood died during the pendency of the petition on 08.09.2021. The landlord filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased Sh. Satish Sood. It was averred that deceased Sh. Satish Sood was survived by his wife. The notice was issued to proposed legal representative of deceased Sh. Satish Chand, who on appearance filed reply to the application and raised an objection that besides her, one daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood was also required to be impleaded as party as she was ordinarily residing along with the deceased Sh. Satish Sood in the premises in question at the time of his death and as such had inherited the tenancy rights along with the wife of deceased Sh. Satish Chand. 5. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 24.05.2022 decided the application by allowing the wife of deceased Sh. Satish Chand to be brought on record. In this manner, the tenant came to be impleaded as respondent. As regards, the objection to implead the daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood as respondent being legal representative, learned Rent Controller held that since there was a dispute as to the factum whether the daughter of deceased Satish Sood was ordinarily residing in the premises at the time of his death or not, the same would be examined at the time of trial. It was also held that for the purpose of trial of rent petition, the petitioner was dominus litus and had a right to choose his adversary. 6. It was also held that for the purpose of trial of rent petition, the petitioner was dominus litus and had a right to choose his adversary. 6. The aforesaid order passed by learned Rent Controller has attained finality as none of the parties challenged the same. 7. Later, the tenant filed an application for amendment of reply under provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. The respondent sought to make two amendments in the replyby adding preliminary objection No.9 and, making additions to para 3 (b) of original reply in following manner:- “(9) That petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood is also necessary party to the present petition as she was ordinarily residing with her at the time of her petition and she has inherited the tenancy rights along with the present respondent after the death of Sh. Satish Sood.” “[3(b)] That the contents of para 3 (b) of petition are wrong and the same are denied. It is submitted that the daughter of deceased respondent is necessary party to the present petition as she has inherited the tenancy right along with respondent after the death of the Sh. Satish Sood in the demised premises.” 8. Thus, the respondent intended to take an objection as to non-joinder of necessary parties by alleging that the daughter of Sh. Satish Sood was ordinarily residing with him at the time of death and as such has inherited the tenancy rights. 9. The application was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that the application is not bonafide and the respondent had intention to delay the proceedings of the case and hamper the smooth trial thereof. It was also claimed that since the same plea raised by the respondent while contesting application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code had already been turned down by learned Rent Controller, the raising of same plea was barred by principle of constructive res judicata. Without admitting the fact that the daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood was ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, it was submitted in alternative that in any event the wife and daughter of deceased respondent Sh. Satish Sood has inherited the tenancy as joint tenants and it was not necessary to implead both of them. 10. Without admitting the fact that the daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Sood was ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, it was submitted in alternative that in any event the wife and daughter of deceased respondent Sh. Satish Sood has inherited the tenancy as joint tenants and it was not necessary to implead both of them. 10. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order has dismissed the application of the respondent primarily on the ground that even if the tenancy is assumed to have been inherited by the respondent and her daughter, the same would be joint between the two and impleadment of either of them was sufficient. Learned Rent Controller placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain and another (2018) 6 SCC 708 . By taking the above view learned Rent Controller concluded that the proposed amendment was not necessary for just decision of the case. 11. As regards the question whether the daughter was ordinarily residing with Sh. Satish Sood at the time of his death, learned Rent Controller observed that in original reply filed by Sh. Satish Sood there was no mention of the daughter also residing with him in the tenanted premises. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 13. One of the grounds considered by learned Rent Controller for rejecting the application is that the original tenant Sh. Satish Sood in the reply filed to the main petition had not stated that in addition to himself and his wife, someone else was also residing in the premises. Impliedly, it has been held that the daughter of Sh. Satish Sood was not ordinarily residing with Sh. Satish Sood at the time of his death. Such approach adopted by learned Rent Controller is not correct for the reasons firstly, that while deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of reply, learned Rent Controller could not have gone into the truthfulness or falsity of the plea sought to be raised and secondly, such conclusion would clearly be in violation of principles of natural justice and basic judicial procedure. Merely because in the original reply filed by Sh. Merely because in the original reply filed by Sh. Satish Sood to main petition it was not mentioned that daughter was also residing with him could not be considered as conclusive proof to establish the fact. The original reply was filed by Sh. Satish Sood to the main petition in the year 2019. Sh. Satish Sood died on 08.09.2021. Thus, there had been a long gap between the two events and for such reason the possibility of change in circumstances cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise without affording parties due opportunity to establish a fact, no finding could be returned. 14. To hold that even if the daughter had inherited the tenancy rights along with her mother, she could not be termed as necessary party learned Rent Controller has placed reliance on the judgment passed in Suresh Kumar Kohli (supra). 15. In Suresh Kumar Kohli (supra), no doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “24. We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 , the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenants is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.” 16. Thus, as per above exposition, an eviction petition against one joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of Rent Controller, however, the above reasons could not be justifiably applied by learned Rent Controller to reject the prayer for amendment. Thus, as per above exposition, an eviction petition against one joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of Rent Controller, however, the above reasons could not be justifiably applied by learned Rent Controller to reject the prayer for amendment. Here the first question to be determined is as to whether daughter has inherited the tenancy rights or not. The landlord has nowhere admitted such position, rather, he has raised a strong opposition. That being so, learned Rent Controller could not foreclose such an issue on presumptive premise. The issue needs determination during the trial of main petition as was rightly held by learned Rent Controller while deciding the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code vide order dated 24.5.2022. 17. The consequence of impugned order will be that the tenant will be divested of opportunity to prove a jurisdictional fact required to determine the status of daughter of Sh. Satish Chand in the premises. Merely because the landlord can maintain petition against one of the joint tenants will not take away the right of determination of status of the daughter vis-à-vis the premises held by her of late father. In Suresh Kumar Kohli , there was no dispute as to the status of son of original tenant. The premise was clear that said son had inherited the tenancy rights, which is not the case here. 18. In case the amendment as proposed by the tenant is not allowed, there is possibility of wrong being committed insofar as the rights of the daughter of deceased Sh. Satish Chand are concerned. In case the daughter of late Sh. Satish Chand outlives her mother, the situation may arise that either the daughter may not get a chance to continue contesting the claim of landlord or in the event of petition being decided in her absence, she may have to initiate the legal proceedings afresh resulting in multiplicity of litigation. 19. In this view of the matter, to say, that the amendment sought was not necessary for adjudication of the real matter in controversy, will not be correct. 20. In the facts of the case in hand, the tenant also cannot be accused of causing delay insofar as filing of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is concerned. In this view of the matter, to say, that the amendment sought was not necessary for adjudication of the real matter in controversy, will not be correct. 20. In the facts of the case in hand, the tenant also cannot be accused of causing delay insofar as filing of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is concerned. After the disposal of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, the application for amendment was filed without any undue delay. Since, the application has been necessitated on account of development which have taken place after commencement of trial, even the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code will not be an impediment in grant of prayer made by the respondent. 21. In result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 20.12.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller is set-aside. The application of the respondent for amendment of reply is allowed. 22. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are for the purposes of disposal of this application and will not affect the merits of case in any manner. 23. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.