CPC Provisions on Discovery and Interrogatories are Not Strictly Applicable to Rent Control Proceedings.

Landlord Narinder Singh Sood (since deceased, represented by LR Rupin Sood) filed an eviction petition for Shop No. 59-B, Lower Bazar, Shimla, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, citing bona fide requirement for his son’s business.

The Petitioner (tenant) moved an application under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14 of the CPC, seeking interrogatories and discovery of documents to prove that Rupin Sood was already running independent businesses (M/s Sood Agency and Sood Enterprises) and was not unemployed.

The Rent Controller dismissed the application on January 2, 2025, citing a delay of nine years and the repetitive nature of the tenant's applications.

The tenant challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act are "Courts of civil jurisdiction" within the meaning of Section 141 of the CPC.

2. Whether the provisions of Order XI of the CPC regarding interrogatories, discovery, and inspection of documents are strictly applicable to proceedings under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act.

The Court applied Section 141 of the CPC, which extends procedural rules to "proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction".

Interpretation of Sections 2(c), 25, and 26 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and Rule 12 of the H.P. Rent Control Rules, which specify that the Rent Controller is a persona designata, not a Civil Court stricto sensu.

The Rent Act is a "complete Code" where the CPC applies only to the extent expressly provided, as established in Dev Raj Duggal v. Harish Kumar and Puran Chand v. Subramaniam.

The Full Bench decision in Pitman’s Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons regarding the status of Rent Control authorities.

The Court reasoned that the Rent Controller is an authority appointed by the State Government (persona designata) and not a regular Civil Court; consequently, Section 141 of the CPC cannot be invoked to apply Order XI in its entirety.

Rule 12(2) of the Rent Control Rules only dictates that the Controller be "guided by the principles" of CPC procedure for recording evidence and granting adjournments, but does not adopt the formal, cumbersome procedures of discovery and interrogatories intended for regular suits.

The Rent Act intended for summary proceedings to ensure expeditious disposal, which would be frustrated by such applications.

The Court noted that the landlord had already provided the relevant tax and license documents during the High Court proceedings, and the tenant's application appeared to be a tactic to protract the 12-year-old litigation.

The High Court dismissed the petition, upheld the Rent Controller's dismissal of the application, and directed the parties to appear before the lower court on June 15, 2026, to proceed with the case.