JATINDER SINGH KUKREJA vs NARINDER KUMAR SOOD

1 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 53 of 2025
Reserved on : 20.05.2026
Decided on : 30 .05.2026
Jatinder Singh Kukreja …Petitioner
Versus
Narinder Singh Sood and another …Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
1 Yes
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lall,
Ms. Sanjeevani Sood and Mr.
Vidur Kapoor, Advocates, for
respondent No. 1.
None for respondent No. 2.

Virender Singh, Judge.
Petitioner-Jitender Singh Kukreja has filed the
present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
nd
India, against the order, dated 2 January, 2025, passed
in CMA No. 3007 of 2024, in Rent Case No. 59/2 of
2017/2014.
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
nd
2. By way of order, dated 2 January, 2025, the
learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Rent Controller’) has dismissed the
application, filed under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 and 14,
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), moved by the petitioner.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
lis , are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in
which, they were referred to, by the learned Rent
Controller.
4. Facts, in brief, as borne out from the
documents, annexed with the petition, necessary for the
adjudication of the present lis, may be summed up, as
under:
4.1. Landlord-Narinder Kumar Sood has filed the
petition, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control
Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Control Act’), with
respect to Shop No. 59-B, Lower Bazar, Shimla, measuring
7 x 15 feet, on the ground of bonafide requirement by him.
4.2. As per the stand taken by the landlord, he
wanted to do the business in the premises, alongwith his
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
son, Rupin Sood. In the said petition, for eviction, the
tenant has moved the application, under Order XI Rules 1,
2, 4, 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking
direction to the landlord to answer the interrogatories and
further, for production/discovery of the documents.
4.3. The said application has been moved on the
ground that Rupin Sood is successor of the landlord-late
Shri Narinder Kumar Sood and said Rupin Sood has been
brought on record as his legal representative. As per the
application, the eviction of the tenant has been sought on
the ground, that the landlord wants to do the business in
the premises and in the said business, his son Rupin Sood,
who is stated to be unemployed, is going to help him.
4.4. The landlord is stated to have filed another
th
eviction application, which was withdrawn on 20
January, 2014.
4.5. According to the tenant, in the eviction petition,
he has filed the detailed reply, by taking various pleas. It
has also been pleaded in the reply that the son of the
landlord, i.e. Rupin Sood, is carrying out business in the
name and style of M/s Sood Agency and Sood Enterprises
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
in 59/2, Lower Bazar, Shimla and is paying Sales Tax,
whereas, the landlord has taken the plea that his son is
unemployed.
4.6. As per the stand of the tenant, efforts were
made by him to obtain the documents with respect to the
business being run by said Rupin Sood. In this regard, the
tenant has relied upon the wedding card of the first cousin
of Rupin Sood, wherein, it has been said that Rupin Sood
is running the business under the name and style of M/s
Sood Agency and Sood Enterprises. Apart from this, the
tenant has filed application before the Public Information
Officer, Sales Tax Department, to obtain the information,
under the provisions of Right to Information Act, however,
the landlord and his son-Rupin Sood objected to the
supply of the said information.
4.7. On the basis of the above facts, it has been
pleaded that the petition for eviction has been filed with
malafide intention, as, Rupin Sood is not unemployed and
is having his own business in building – 59/2, Lower
Bazar, Shimla.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
4.8. By way of the application, filed before the
learned Rent Controller, the following relief has been
sought by the tenant:
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this
application may kindly be allowed and the non-
applicant/petitioner may kindly be ordered to
answer the interrogatories which are being
submitted along with the present application as
per the Appendix ‘C’ Form No. 2 and he may also
be required to produce the documents which are
being sought for as per the Form No. 7 Appendix
‘C’ in the interest of justice.”
4.9. Alongwith the said application, the tenant has
annexed the interrogatories, which are reproduced as
under:
“1. Whether the petitioner Shri Rupin Sood is
running business of M/s Sood Agency and Sood
Enterprises? In case, he is running the said
business, since when the said business is being
run and who is proprietor/partner of the same.
2. Whether the petitioner is paying the sale
tax/GST to the concerned Department with
respect to the Firm M/s Sood Agency and Sood
Enterprises? In case the sale tax/GST is being
paid, since when, the same is being paid by Sh.
Rupin Sood.
3.What is the address of business given in the
official records of the aforesaid business of Sh.
Rupin Sood? How much tax is being paid by Sh.
Rupin Sood qua the income from the aforesaid
firms to the Income Tax Authorities.”
4.10. In addition to this, notice to produce the
documents, under Order XI Rule 16 CPC has also been
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
filed, with a prayer to direct the landlord to produce the
following documents:
1. Entire documents/returns of M/s Sood
Agency and Sood Enterprises, especially the
sale tax/GST returns being furnished for the
last 10 years by Sh. Rupin Sood.
2. Entire documents qua the income tax
returns being filed by M/s Sood Agency and
Sood Enterprises through Sh. Rupin Sood to
the Income Tax Authorities may also be
produced for inspection before the Court.”
5. This application has been contested by the
landlord, by taking the preliminary objections, that the
application is not maintainable; the applicant has no locus
standi to file the present application; the applicant is
stated to be in habit of moving such applications; the case
is fixed for the evidence of the landlord and according to
him, the applicant will get sufficient opportunity to cross-
examine the landlord, regarding the documents, sought to
be produced, and can controvert him, however, the present
application has been moved to drag the litigation.
5.1. On merit, the application has been contested on
the ground that Rupin Sood is successor of Narinder
Kumar Sood (landlord, who had filed the petition) and said
th
Narinder Kumar Sood has died on 13 May, 2019.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
5.2. It has been denied that landlord-Rupin Sood is
carrying the business in the name and style of M/s Sood
Agency. According to him, he has no concern with M/s
Sood Agency, as, he is not the proprietor, nor, running the
business. According to him, he is only the proprietor of
Sood Enterprises, where, he purchases some petty articles
to sell the same in retail, as, he is having the license of
street hawker.
5.3. The application has further been contested on
the ground that Rupin Sood is not running any kind of
business, as such, there was no occasion for supplying the
information.
5.4. The application is stated to be nothing, but, a
method to linger on the matter. Hence, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the application.
6. The tenant has filed the rejoinder to the reply
filed by the landlord, denying the preliminary objections, as
well as, the contents of the same, by virtue of which, the
application has been contested. The stand, as taken in the
application, has been re-asserted.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

8 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
7. The learned Rent Controller, vide order, dated
nd
2 January, 2025, has dismissed the application, by
holding that the application has been moved at the stage,
when, the case is fixed for petitioner’s (landlord’s) evidence.
7.1. Another ground, upon which, the application
has been dismissed, is that the tenant has moved too
many applications, under different provisions of CPC.
According to the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has
also moved an application, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC,
th
which was dismissed on 26 February, 2024. Thereafter,
the tenant has assailed the same before the High Court
rd
and his Civil Revision was also dismissed on 3
September, 2024. While dismissing the said Civil Revision,
according to the learned Rent Controller, the High Court
has observed that the application has been filed after a
long period of ten years, from the filing of the original reply.
7.2. The application under consideration has also
been dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay of nine
years.
8. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the
present petition has been filed, by the tenant, assailing the
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

9 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
order passed by the learned Rent Controller, on the ground
that the learned Rent Controller has wrongly dismissed the
application, as, the same has been filed under the
provisions of Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 and 14 read with
Section 151 of the CPC, and the same has nothing to do
with the dismissal of the application, filed under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC.
8.1. According to the petitioner-tenant, the
documents, sought to be discovered/interrogatories
submitted, are necessary for the just adjudication of the
controversy inter se the parties. The relevant provisions,
governing the interrogatories, are stated to have been
overlooked, by the learned Rent Controller. The provisions
of the interrogatories, discovery and inspection, according
to the petitioner-tenant, are applicable to the cases, under
the provisions of the Rent Control Act. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the tenant has relied upon the
provisions of Section 141 CPC.
8.2. On the basis of the above grounds, Mr. Deepak
Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, has
prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, by
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

10 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
setting aside the order, passed by the learned Rent
Controller and the application, moved by him, as referred
to above, may kindly be allowed.
8.3. In support of his plea that the provisions of
discovery and inspection are fully applicable to the rent
proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-tenant has relied upon the decision of the Delhi
High Court, in A.K. Aggarwal versus Shanti Devi,
reported in 1996 RLR 60 and the decision of the Kerala
High Court in P.M. Parthakumar versus Shri
Venugopalan and ors., reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 1856
(KER).
9. The prayer, so made, has been opposed by Mr.
R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Arjun
Lall, Ms. Sanjeevani Sood and Mr. Vidur Kapoor,
Advocates, appearing on behalf of the landlord, on the
ground that the application moved by the petitioner-
tenant, before the learned Rent Controller is nothing, but,
a method of protract the litigation, which is pending for the
last twelve years, before the learned Rent Controller.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

11 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
9.1. It has been argued by the learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for the landlord, that the case was
listed for petitioner’s evidence, when, the present
application has been moved and the said application is in
the series of the applications, which were moved earlier
and were dismissed, by the learned Rent Controller,
including the application, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The said order, which has been passed by the learned Rent
Controller, dismissing the application, filed under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC, has been assailed before this Court, by way
of Civil Revision and the said Revision has also been
rd
dismissed on 3 September, 2024.
9.2. In addition to this, it has also been argued that
the Rent Control Act is a complete Code and the provisions
of CPC are not applicable, to the proceedings, under the
Rent Control Act, except those have been made expressly
applicable.
9.3. In order to buttress his contentions, learned
senior counsel appearing for the landlord, has relied upon
the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shiv
Kumar versus Rajesh Bala, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

12 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
P&H 5143; decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 69
of 2022, titled as Dev Raj Duggal versus Harish Kumar,
th
decided on 14 October, 2022; and another decision of this
Court in Civil Revision No. 42 of 2023, titled as Puran
th
Chand versus Subramaniam, decided on 16 September,
2023.
9.4. It has also been contended that by way of
application, bearing CMP No. 10394 of 2026, in which, a
th
prayer has been made to vacate the order, dated 20 April,
2026, by virtue of which, the proceedings before the
learned Rent Controller have been ordered to be stayed,
requisite documents, i.e. copy of the Street Vending
License, copy of the Income Tax Returns, copy of the GST
Returns, rough site plan and photos of the demised
premises have been annexed.
9.5. Lastly, it has been argued that the provisions,
under which, the application has been moved, are not
applicable to the Rent Petition.
10. Admittedly, the petition for eviction has been
moved under the provisions of Rent Control Act.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

13 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
11. Before proceeding further, it would be profitable
to reproduce the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the
Rent Control Act; Rule 12 of the H.P. Rent Control Rules
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Control Rules’); and
Section 141 of the CPC, as under:
Sections 25 and 26 of Rent Control Act
“25. Power to summon and enforce
attendance of witnesses – For the purposes of
this Act, an appellate authority or a Controller
appointed under this Act shall have the same
powers of summoning and enforcing the
attendance of witnesses and compelling the
production of evidence as are vested in a court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908).
26. Execution of orders – Save as otherwise
provided in section 31, any order made by the
Controller or an order passed on appeal under
this Act, shall be executable by the Controller as
a decree of a civil court and for this purpose, the
Controller shall have all the powers of a civil
court.”
Rule 12 of Rent Control Rules
“ 12. Procedure to be followed by
Controller in disposing of an application
-
(1) When an application under the Act is
presented to the Controller, he shall fix the
date, time and place at which the enquiry in
respect of the application will be held and
send a notice alongwith a copy of the
application to each respondent in Form-E
appended to these rules.
(2) The Controller shall give to the parties, a
reasonable opportunity to state their case. He
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

14 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
shall also record the evidence of the parties
and witnesses examined on either side and in
doing so and in fixing dates for the hearing of
the parties and their witnesses, in adjourning
the proceedings, and dismissing application
for default or for other sufficient reasons the
Controller shall be guided by the principles of
the procedure as laid down in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.”
Section 141 of the CPC
141. Miscellaneous proceedings. - The
procedure provided in this Code in regard to
suits shall be followed, as far as it can be
made applicable, in all proceedings in any
Court of civil jurisdiction.
Explanation.— In this section, the expression
"proceedings" includes proceedings under
Order IX, but does not include any proceedings
under article 226 of the Constitution.”
12. In the above factual background, the question,
which requires adjudication, by this Court, is about the
fact, as to whether, the Rent Controller is stricto sensu a
Civil Court, the procedure of which is to be governed by the
CPC.
13. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has used the
term ‘in the Court of civil jurisdiction’ in Section 141 of the
CPC. In view of the provisions of Section 141 of the CPC,
now, the question, which requires to be determined, is
about the fact, as to whether the Rent Controller or the
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

15 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
Appellate Authority fall within the definition of ‘Court of
civil jurisdiction’ or not.
14. This question has been answered in negative,
by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
way back in the year 1949, in a case, titled as Pitman’s
Shorthand Academy versus B. Lila Ram & Sons,
reported in AIR 1950 P&H 181. Relevant paras-17 to 21,
of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:
“17. The fact that there are decisions on both
sides only goes to show that Judges, when
confronted with the question whether a certain
functionary is or is not a Court, consider it
necessary to enquire into the matter and are
not disposed to give a clear-cut answer
immediately. It follows that they have
universally recognised the proposition that a
judicial officer, e. g., a Senior Subordinate
Judge, a District Magistrate or a District Judge
may be entrusted with duties of a judicial or
quasi-judicial-nature and yet while performing
these duties he does not act as a Court.
Whether this is so or not will depend on the
circumstances of each particular case, namely,
what was the intention of the Legislature, to
create a Court or appoint a persona designata:
what is the nature of the duties entrusted to
him: what are his powers and what procedure
does he follow : does he, when discharging
these special duties, act in every way as a
Court of law would act : does he satisfy all the
tests usually applied to Courts of law ?
18. Once it is conceded that the Senior
Subordinate Judge when acting as a Rent
Controller or the District Judge when acting as
the "Appellate authority" may or may not be
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

16 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
acting as a civil Court an enquiry into the
matter may be undertaken with complete
freedom from bias and untrammelled by the
prepossession that a judicial officer always
acts as a civil Court, no matter what duties he
performs.
19. We may first attempt to formulate a
definition of a civil Court, As far as I am aware
no exhaustive definition of the term has been
given in any judicial pronouncement-English or
Indian, though various tests have been laid
down whereby the true nature of a tribunal or
authority may be determined. Broadly
speaking, a Court is a place where justice is
judicially administered. It is, however, clear
that to say this much is not enough. Further
analysis of the authorities shows that there
are certain ingredients or essential attributes
of a Court of law without any of which the
tribunal or the authority ceases to enjoy the
dignity or character of a Court. It is necessary,
for instance, that judicial duties be entrusted
to the tribunal by operation of law and not by
voluntary submission by the parties to a
dispute. An arbitrator, therefore, cannot be
considered as a Court of law. Again, the
tribunal must adjudicate upon civil disputes.
To adjudicate means to give a definitive
decision which is final until it is set aside or
modified by an "Appellate Authority." It is not
enough that the tribunal should give an
opinion or act in an advisory capacity.
Therefore, a Collector acting under S. 18, Land
Acquisition Act who acts merely in an advisory
capacity cannot be looked upon as a Court.
Civil disputes again mean disputes whose
nature is justiciable i.e., where the law of the
land recognises the wrong and provide a
remedy. The decision of non-judicial disputes
cannot be treated as the administration of
justice. Again, it is not enough that a Court of
law should conduct its proceedings with
fairness and impartiality. It must decide them
according to the law of the land. It must not be
affected by ulterior considerations or matters
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

17 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
of executive policy. The Privy Council in Shell
Co., Australia Ltd. v. Federal Commr. of
Taxation, 1931 A. C. 275: (100 L. J. P. C. 55),
held that a Board of Revenue was not a Court
because it has to take into consideration
matters of executive policy. In Manavala
Goundan v. Kumarappa Reddy, 30 Mad. 326
(17 M. L. J. 313), a District Registrar was held
not to be a Court because he did not
administer justice judicially. Again, the rules of
procedure which the Court of law must follow
cannot be arbitrary. The procedure must be
defined by statute or recognised by law. In the
Municipal Corporation, Rangoon v. M. A.
Shakur, 3 Rang. 560; (A. I. R. 1926 Rang. 25),
a Full Bench of the Rengoon High Court held
that the Chief Justice of the Rangoon Small
Cause Court acting under S. 14, Rangoon
Municipal Act could not be said to act as a
Court because he was free to disregard the
procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure
Code. The Judge was entitled under S. 14,
Rangoon Municipal Act to make such enquiry
as he deemed necessary, and this departure
from the ordinary rules of procedure as laid
down by the Civil Procedure Code was
considered sufficient to take him out of the
category of a Court of law. In Manager, Spring
Mills v. Ambekar, MANU/MH/0099/1947 :
A.I.R. 1949 Bom. 188: (I.L.R (1948) Bom. 863),
the authority acting under the Payment of
Wages Act was held not to be a Court of law
because (1) the procedure followed was not the
procedure prescribed for a civil Court, and (2)
the authority was treated as a special body
set up to adjudicate upon civil rights and a
distinction had been made between an
application to the authority and a suit filed in
a civil Court. Similarly, in Sudagar Choudhury
v. Radha Raman, MANU/BH/0171/1948:
A.I.R. 1949 Pat. 333, it was held that the
District Judge when exercising jurisdiction
under S. 78, Bihar and Orissa Village
Administration Act was not a Court because
(1) the District. Judge acted as a revisional
Court although ordinarily it had no such power
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

18 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
in respect of the Panchayat, and (2) the
procedure which he could follow was
unfettered. For instance, he could dispense
with the rules of evidence and legal
practitioners were not allowed to appear
before him. In many cases it has been held
that where the Presiding Officer of the Court
rather than the Court is entrusted with special
powers the Presiding Officer is to be looked
upon as a persona, designata.
20. A Court of law may, therefore, be defined
as a tribunal dealing with and adjudicating
upon civil disputes by operation of law in a
judicial manner untroubled by ulterior
considerations or matters of executive policy
and observing certain definite rules of
procedure which are either defined by statute
or recognised by practice. It may be that a
tribunal falling under this definition may yet
not be a Court of law, but from the above
discussion it will be clear that if any of these
attributes are missing the tribunal certainly
falls short of being a Court of law.
21. Applying this test to the Controller and the
"Appellate Authority" appointed under the
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act we find that
in the first place that Act does not entrust the
functions of a Controller to the Senior
Subordinate Judge as such, nor does it
appoint the District Judge as the "Appellate
Authority". The Act reserves to the Provincial
Government the power of appointing
Controllers and "Appellate Authorities." Non-
judicial officers or indeed non-officials could
easily have been appointed to function as
Controllers and "Appellate Authorities" under
the Act and in that case it could not have been
said that the persons so appointed were civil
Courts. It was by a subsequent notification
that the Government appointed Senior Sub
Judges as Rent Controllers and the District
Judges as Appellate Authorities." In the second
place, the procedure laid down is not the
procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

19 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
Code except in two or three respects e. g.,
power has been given to the Rent Controller
and the "Appellate Authority" to summon and
examine witnesses. The orders made by the
Controller or the 'Appellate Authority" can be
enforced by a civil Court as if they were
decrees of that Court. A modification of the
principle of res judicata has also been
introduced by the provisions of S. 14. None of
the other incidents of a Court of law, however,
obtain. The "Appellate Authority" in hearing an
appeal from the decision of the Controller can
make any further enquiry as it thinks fit either
personally or through the Collector, and this
contemplates even a private enquiry, should
the "Appellate Authority" consider it necessary.
Such a course would be wholly foreign to the
duties of a Court of law. Again, it is to be noted
that S. 15, sub-s. (4) makes a distinction
between a Court of law and the Controller, for
it says that the order of the Controller cannot
be called in question in any Court of law. It is
by itself sufficient to indicate that it was not
the intention of the Legislature to create a
Court of law but to appoint a persona
designata who would be entrusted with
certain specific functions. We thus find that
many of the attributes of a Court of law are not
to be found in the Controller or the "Appellate
Authority".
(self emphasis supplied)
15. The proceedings before the learned Rent
Controller are specialized quasi judicial processes,
governed by Rent Control Act, aiming to regulate the
relationship between the landlord and tenant, including
the rent fixation and eviction.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

20 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
16. As per the Rent Control Act, ‘Controller’ has
been defined under Section 2 (c), in the following terms:
“ 2. Definitions. -
In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires, -
(a) … … …
(b) … … …
(c) “Controller” means any person who is
appointed by the State Government to perform
the functions of the Controller under this Act.”
17. Meaning thereby, the Rent Controller is not a
Court, but, persona designata. Similarly, the Appellate
Authority, as per Section 24 of the Rent Control Act is also
persona designata, as has been held in Pitman’s
Shorthand Academy’s case (supra).
18. The question, with regard to the applicability of
the provisions of the CPC, again arose before a Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ram
Dass versus Sukhdev Kaur and another, reported in AIR
1981 P&H 301, wherein, it has been held that the Rent
Controllers are not Courts stricto sensu and, as such,
Section 141 of the CPC cannot be invoked. Relevant
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

21 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
paras-3 to 5 and 8 of the said judgment, are reproduced,
as under:
3. Now to appreciate the aforesaid legal
question what calls for pointed attention at the
out-set is the very nature of the tribunal
exercising jurisdiction under the  East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter
called 'the Act').  Section 2(b)  of the Act defining
the word 'Controller' is in the following terms:--
"Controller" means any person who is
appointed by the State Government to
perform the function of a Controller
under this Act."
It would be manifest from the above that a
wide-ranging power is given to the State
government to appoint any person as a
'Controller' under the Act. Again reference
to  Section 15(1)(a)  empowering the State
Government to appoint the Appellate Authority
is instructive:--
"The State Government may, by general
or special order, by notification confer on
such officers and authorities as they
think fit, the powers of Appellate
Authorities for the purposes of this Act,
in such area or in such classes of cases
as maybe specified in the order."
This would again show the wide amplitude of
the power vested in the State Government to
name the Appellate Authorities under the Act.
4. I may point out that considerable
misapprehension and confusion sometimes
arises in this context from the fact that usually
the powers of the Controller under the Act
have been conferred on subordinate Judges
and the powers of Appellate Authority now are
also specifically vested by notification in the
District Judges. This fortuitous circumstance,
however, should not lead one to the error of
assuming that there by the controllers or the
Appellate authorities became Civil courts as
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

22 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
such. They retain their essential nature as
tribunals or person designate under the
special statute. It is instructive to remind
oneself that under a sister statue,
namely,   Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1973 , the powers of the
controllers were at one time taken away from
the subordinate Judges and vested in the sub-
Divisional Officers and similarly the Deputy
Commissioners of the districts were made the
Appellate Authorities by a notification.
  By Section 15 , Clause (6) of the Haryana
urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973,
the financial commissioner was designated by
the statute itself as the revisional Authority to
the exclusion of the High Court. Though there
is recently a reversion to the old practice, the
above circumstances rightly highlight the fact
that if would be misleading to assume that the
controllers or the Appellate authorities are
necessarily Civil Courts.
5. I deem it unnecessary to labour the point
because within this jurisdiction, it has been
settled law that the Controllers and the
Appellate Authority under the Act are not even
courts and are indeed persons designate. Way
back it was authoritatively held by the Full
Bench in Pitman's Shorthand Academy v. B.
Lila Ram and Sons, AIR 1950 East Punj 181,
as follows (at p. 188):--
".......With great respect, therefore, I
must differ from the pronouncement of
the Division Bench of the Lahore High
Court and it is clear to me that the
intention of the Legislature was to
appoint persona designate to perform
specific duties and it was further the
intention that these persons would not
be governed by the ordinary rules of
procedure, nor would their decisions be
subject to appeal or revision in a Court
of law, and I must, therefore, hold that
the Rent controller and "Appellate
Authority" are not Courts of law
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

23 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
subordinate to the High Court within the
meaning of Section 115, Civil P. C."
Apart from the afore said authoritative
enunciation, reference is also called for to the
provisions of  Sections 16  and  17  of the Act,
which are in the following terms:--
"16. Power to summon and enforce
attendance of witnesses.--For the
purposes of this Act, an Appellate
Authority or a Controller appointed
under the act shall have the same
powers of summoning and enforcing the
attendance of witnesses and compelling
the production of evidence as are vested
in a Court under  the Code of Civil
Procedure , 1908."
"17. Execution of Order.--Every order
made under  Section 10 , or 13, and every
order passed on appeal under  Section
15  shall be executed by a Civil Court
having jurisdiction in the area as if it
were a decree of that Court."
It would be thus manifest on principles also
from the relevant statutory provisions that the
Civil Procedure Code as such does not govern
the proceedings under the Act except to the
limited extent provided for under Ss. 16 and
17 thereof. Even by applying these provisions
most liberally one cannot bring in either
expressly or by necessary implication the rest
of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In
particular it would be evident that the specific
and detailed provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of
the Civil Procedure Code would not, therefore,
be applicable proprio vigore to the rent
jurisdiction. The controllers and the Appellate
Authorities being persona designate are
entitled to devise their own procedure within
the confines prescribed by the Act itself.
6. … … …
7. … … …
8. In fairness to Mr. J. R. Mittal, it may be
mentioned that he had first sought to place
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

24 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
reliance on  Section 141  of the Code of Civil
Procedure which is in the following terms:--
"Miscellaneous proceedings.--The procedure
provided in this Code in regard to suits shall
be followed, as far as it can be made
applicable in all proceedings in any Court of
Civil Jurisdiction."
From the above it would be plain that the
contention of the learned counsel is not well
conceived. The aforesaid provision makes the
procedure applicable to proceedings in any
Court of civil jurisdiction. As has been already
indicated above, it is well settled that the Rent
Controllers are not Court stricto sensu, but are
persona designate, as held by a string of
judgments in this Court. Consequently   section
141   of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be
invoked in this context.”
(self emphasis supplied)
19. Had the intention of the Legislature been to
make the procedure, as contained in the CPC, applicable to
the proceedings, under the Rent Control Act, before the
Rent Controller, then, there would have no hesitation for
the Legislature to apply the same, in clear terms, whereas,
by way of Rule 12 of the Rent Control Rules, it has been
provided that the Controller shall be guided by the
principle of procedure, as laid down in the CPC.
20. The proforma of the petition, under Rule 3 and
sub-Rule (3) to Rule 4 of the Rent Control Rules, has been
prescribed, which has been prescribed, keeping in view the
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

25 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
legislative intent to decide the petition, in a summary
manner.
21. The Rent Controller cannot proceed with the
eviction petition, filed under Section 14 or Section 17 of the
Rent Control Act, as per the procedure, prescribed under
the CPC. The same is governed by Rule 5, which
prescribes the verification, as per Order VI Rules 14 and 15
of the CPC. Similarly, by way of Rules 14 and 15 of the
Rent Control Rules, procedure for filing the appeal and
revision, has been prescribed.
22. If the above Rules are seen, in the light of the
provisions of the CPC, then, it can safely be held that the
Legislature has provided a window, by way of Rule 12 of
the Rent Control Rules, qua the applicability of the
principle of procedure, which shall guide the Rent
Controller, while deciding the eviction petition.
23. As per the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Puran Chand’s case (supra), Rent Control Act
has been held to be a special enactment and a complete
Code. Relevant paras-16 to 18, of the said judgment, are
reproduced, as under:
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

26 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
“16. In Rent Rules, Rule 3 prescribes that
application under Sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 14 and
15 shall be made in Form “A”, Rule 4 provides
procedure for permission and recovery of
possession under Section 17 of the Act by
filing an application in Form “B” and Rule 8
provides filing of an application under Section
21 for deposit/payment of rent with Rent
Controller in Form “D”. The manner, in which
an application is to be made and 7 procedure
to be followed by Controller in disposing of
such application, has been provided in Rule 5
and Rule 12. Rule 14 provides procedure for
filing appeal whereas Rule 15 provides
manner in which application for revision is to
be made under Section 24 of the Act.
17. Scheme of Rent Act and Rent Rules not
only impliedly but explicitly prohibits the
applicability of all provisions of Civil Procedure
Code, except those mentioned in the Act and
Rules itself, during adjudication of
application(s) under the Rent Act. It also
specifies the causes and issues regarding
which applications can be filed under the Rent
Act. Therefore, provisions of Order 26 Rule 9
CPC are not applicable in a Rent Petition
permitting either party to invoke the same.
18. Rule 12 explicitly provides the procedure to
be followed by Rent Controller in disposing of
an application under the Rent Act. Rule 12(2)
provides that the Controller shall give a
reasonable opportunity to parties to state their
case. Further that he shall record the evidence
of parties and witnesses examined on either
side, and while doing so, and also in fixing the
date for hearing of parties and their witnesses,
in adjourning the proceedings and dismissing
the applications for default or for other
sufficient reason, the Controller shall be
guided by principles of procedure as laid down
in CPC, meaning thereby that during
adjudication of an application under the Rent
Act, applicability of CPC is limited to the extent
as provided under Rule 12(2) of Rent Rules.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

27 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
Applications which are permissible to be 8
filed under the Rent Act have been
enumerated in Sections 4 to 6, 11, 14, 15, 17,
21 and procedure and performa, i.e. Forms
“A”, “B” and “D”, for filing them have also
been provided in and with Rules i.e. Rules 3,
4, and 8. Procedure for filing appeal and
revision has also been prescribed under Rules.
Therefore, intention of Legislation is very clear
that CPC or its principles have not been made
applicable in entirety to the proceedings under
the Rent Act and special Act has been enacted
for disposing of applications made therein as
expeditiously as possible without adhering to
cumbersome and lengthy procedure provided
under CPC for adjudication of a regular suit.
Had the intention of Legislation to make all
provision of CPC applicable, there would not
have been any necessity to mention
applicability of CPC, its certain provisions and
principles contained therein with special
reference as provided in Sections 16(9), Section
25 and Section 26 of Rent Act as well as Rule
5 and Rule 12 of Rent Rules.”
24. Similar view has been taken in Dev Raj
Duggal’s case (supra). Relevant paras-20 to 26, of the
said judgment, are reproduced, as under:
“20. Rent Act is a special enactment framed
and made applicable to all urban areas of
Himachal Pradesh. Rent Rules provide
procedure for conducting the proceedings by
Rent Controller under this Act. Civil Procedure
Code is a general enactment prescribing
procedure in civil litigations. No doubt
proceedings under the Rent Act are also civil in
nature but such proceedings are governed and
regulated by Rent Act and Rules made
thereunder.
21. Rent Control Act is a complete Code in
itself dealing with filing, adjudication and
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

28 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
disposal of rent petitions under it. It provides
determination of fair rent, revision of fair rent
in certain cases, increase in fair rent,
complaint against cutting off or withholding
essential supply or services, eviction of
tenants, recovery of immediate possession of
premises, also recovery of possession for
limited period and deposit of rent by tenant
with the Controller as provided under Sections
4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Act.
22. Section 24 provides an appeal against
order passed by Rent Controller and Section
24(5) empowers the High Court to entertain
revision petition, on application of any
aggrieved party or on its own motion or calling
and examining the record related to any order
or proceedings taken under the Rent Act.
23. In Rent Rules, Rule 3 prescribes that
application under Sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 14 and
15 shall be made in Form “A”, Rule 4 provides
procedure for permission and recovery of
possession under Section 17 of the Act by
filing an application in Form “B” and Rule 8
provides filing of an application under Section
21 for deposit/payment of rent with Rent
Controller in Form “D”. The manner, in which
an application is to be made and procedure to
be followed by Controller in disposing of such
application, has been provided in Rule 5 and
Rule 12. Rule 14 provides procedure for filing
appeal whereas Rule 15 provides manner in
which application for revision is to be made
under Section 24 of the Act.
24. Scheme of Rent Act and Rent Rules not
only impliedly but explicitly prohibits the
applicability of all provisions of Civil Procedure
Code, except those mentioned in the Act and
Rules itself, during adjudication of
application(s) under the Rent Act. It also
specifies the causes and issues regarding
which applications can be filed under the Rent
Act. Therefore, as already held by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 290 of 2018
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

29 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
neither provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
nor similar prayer otherwise is permissible to
be made during adjudication of rent petition.
25. What cannot be done directly can also not
be permitted to be done indirectly. Rule 12
explicitly provides the procedure to be followed
by Rent Controller in disposing of an
application under the Rent Act. Rule 12(2)
provides that the Controller shall give a
reasonable opportunity to parties to state their
case. Further that he shall record the evidence
of parties and witnesses examined on either
side, and while doing so, and also in fixing the
date for hearing of parties and their witnesses,
in adjourning the proceedings and dismissing
the applications for default or for other
sufficient reason, the Controller shall be
guided by principles of procedure as laid down
in CPC, meaning thereby that during
adjudication of an application under the Rent
Act, applicability of CPC is limited to the extent
as provided under Rule 12(2) of Rent Rules.
Applications which are permissible to be filed
under the Rent Act have been enumerated in
Sections 4 to 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21 and
procedure and performa, i.e. Forms “A”, “B”
and “D”, for filing them have also been
provided in and with Rules i.e. Rules 3, 4, and
8. Procedure for filing appeal and revision has
also been prescribed under Rules. Therefore,
intention of Legislation is very clear that CPC
or its principles have not been made applicable
in entirety to the proceedings under the Rent
Act and special Act has been enacted for
disposing of applications made therein as
expeditiously as possible without adhering to
cumbersome and lengthy procedure provided
under CPC for adjudication of a regular suit.
Had the intention of Legislation to make all
provision of CPC applicable, there would not
have been any necessity to mention
applicability of CPC, its certain provisions and
principles contained therein with special
reference as provided in Sections 16(9), Section
25 and Section 26 of Rent Act as well as Rule
5 and Rule 12 of Rent Rules. 26. Rent Act and
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

30 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
Rules provide limited application of provisions
of CPC or principles contained therein.
Explanation in Section 9 provides that
expression “legal representative” has the same
meaning as assigned to it in the Code of Civil
Procedure with further qualification that it
includes also, in the case of joint family
property the joint family of which the deceased
was a member. Section 16(9) provides that
Rent Controller may exercise the power of
review in accordance with provisions of Order
XLVI of CPC where no application for revision
has been made to the High Court. Section 25
empowers the Rent Controller to summon and
enforce the attendance of witnesses and to
compel the production of evidence as the Court
is empowered under CPC; Section 66 provides
that orders passed under the Rent Act by
Controller or Appellate Authority shall be
executable by Controller as a decree of Civil
Suit and for this purpose, Controller shall have
all powers of Civil Court. Rule 5 provides the
manner in which applications are to be made
under the Rent Act providing that every such
application shall be signed and verified in the
manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of
Order 6 of CPC. Rule 12 speaks about
applicability of principles of procedure as laid
down in CPC with respect to recording the
evidence of parties, examination of witnesses
of either side, fixing the dates for hearing of
parties and their witnesses, adjourning the
proceedings and dismissing the applications
for default or for other sufficient reasons.
There is no other provision either in Rent Act or
Rent Rules making applicability of the
provisions of CPC or principles contained
therein as a whole in proceedings under Rent
Act. Even Rules 14 and 15 provide a procedure
for filing appeal and revision under Section 24
of Rent Act independently without referring
procedure prescribed in CPC.”
(self emphasis supplied)
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

31 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
25. Rule 12 of the Rent Control Rules, as
reproduced hereinabove, provides that the learned Rent
Controller shall be guided by the principles of the
procedure, as laid down by the CPC. The Controller, as per
this Rule, shall give the parties, reasonable opportunity to
state their case. He shall also record the evidence of the
parties and witnesses examined on either side.
26. This Court, in Smt. Surinder Kaur versus
Mohinder Pal Singh, reported in Indian Law Reports
(1976) 5 HIM 620 , has held that the Appellate Authority
has no power to remand the appeal, filed under the
provisions of the Rent Control Act, as, the procedure for
deciding the appeal, has been prescribed in the Rent
Control Act.
27. Merely, on the basis of Rule 12, in which, it has
been held that the Rent Controller is guided by the
principles of CPC, regarding the matters, which have been
explained in Rule 12 sub-Rule (2), it cannot be said that
the entire CPC is stricto sensu applicable to the
proceedings, under the Rent Control Act.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

32 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
28. When, the Rent Control Rules govern the
appearance before the Controller, deposit of rent,
procedure to be followed by the Controller in disposing of
the applications, inspection, procedure for filing appeal,
revision; then, the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner-tenant, qua the fact, that in
view of Section 141 of the CPC, the procedure provided in
CPC, shall be applicable to the proceedings under the Rent
Control Act, hold no water.
29. In view of the decision in Pitman’s Shorthand
Academy’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that
when the procedure has been prescribed, under the Rent
Control Act, as well as, the Rent Control Rules, as referred
to above, then, the application, filed under Order XI Rules
1, 2, 4, 12 and 14, read with Section 151 of the CPC, was
not maintainable, before the learned Rent Controller.
30. The authorities have been constituted under the
Rent Control Act, as per the procedure, which has been
prescribed under the Rent Control Act and Rules, as
referred to above, while providing that the Rent Controller
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

33 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
shall be guided by the principle of procedure, as prescribed
in the CPC.
31. In view of the above discussion, no benefit can
be derived by the petitioner-tenant, from the decision of the
Delhi High Court, in A.K. Aggarwal’s case (supra) and the
decision of the Kerala High Court in P.M. Parthakumar’s
case (supra).
32. Even otherwise, the requisite documents have
now been annexed with the application, bearing CMP No.
10394 of 2026. Considering the fact that the Rent Petition
is pending for the last twelve years, before the learned Rent
Controller, this Court is of the view that the arguments of
the learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord, qua
lingering on the matter, on one pretext or the other, by the
tenant, cannot be ruled out, in the present case.
33. Having glance of the above discussion, the
application, filed by the petitioner-tenant, under Order XI
Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 and 14, read with Section 151 CPC,
before the learned Rent Controller, is held to be not
maintainable. Consequently, the instant petition is
dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS

34 2026:HHC:20651 
High Court of H.P.
34. No order as to costs.
35. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to
th
appear before the learned Rent Controller, on 15 June,
2026, at 10.00 a.m.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
May 30, 2026
( rajni )
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 15:31:38 :::CIS