Order I Rule 10 CPC is inapplicable before Rent Controllers, who are persona designata.

Sandeep Sood, claiming to be the landlord, instituted a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (“Rent Control Act”) against Dimple Malhotra for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

During the pendency of the rent petition, and when the matter was listed for arguments, Kuldeep Sood applied under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking impleadment as petitioner No. 2 on the ground that he was a co-owner/co-sharer of the demised premises.

The Rent Controller dismissed the application on 30 March 2026.

Kuldeep Sood challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had separately instituted a declaration and partition suit in 2023, including claims for partition, rendition of accounts of rents received from tenants, payment of his share, and injunction against unilateral collection of rent.

Whether an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC was maintainable before the Rent Controller under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987?

Whether the petitioner, merely by asserting co-ownership/co-sharer status, was a necessary or proper party to the landlord’s eviction petition?

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the Rent Controller’s order was maintainable under Article 227, or whether the statutory appellate remedy under Section 24(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act was applicable?

The Court applied Section 2(c) of the Rent Control Act, which defines a “Controller” as a person appointed by the State Government to perform the statutory functions of the Controller, and Section 2(d), which defines “landlord”.

Section 24(1)(b) provides a statutory appeal to any person aggrieved by an order of the Controller, subject to the prescribed limitation period.

Rule 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Rules requires the Controller to be guided by the principles of procedure under the CPC, rather than making the CPC directly applicable to rent-control proceedings.

Relying on Pitman’s Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons, AIR 1950 P&H 181, and Ram Dass v. Sukhdev Kaur, AIR 1981 P&H 301, the Court held that a Rent Controller is a persona designata and not a civil court stricto sensu; consequently, Section 141 CPC and ordinary CPC provisions do not apply proprio vigore to rent-control proceedings.

The Rent Controller’s jurisdiction is confined to disputes arising within the landlord–tenant relationship under the Rent Control Act, and a person seeking impleadment must show a legally relevant status within that statutory framework.

The Court held that the petitioner’s application, expressly founded on Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 CPC, was not maintainable because the Rent Controller is a statutory persona designata and not a civil court to which the CPC applies generally.

Rule 12 merely permits the Controller to be guided by CPC principles; it does not incorporate the CPC in its entirety or confer jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2).

Independently, the petitioner’s assertion that he was a co-sharer did not establish that he was a “landlord” entitled to participate in the eviction proceedings.

The application did not claim entitlement to receive rent from the tenant, while the landlord’s eviction petition was based on the asserted landlord–tenant relationship with Dimple Malhotra.

The petitioner’s separate partition and accounting suit could determine his alleged proprietary or monetary rights, but the pleadings before the Rent Controller were insufficient to make him a necessary or proper party to the summary eviction proceedings.

The Court also observed that an aggrieved person had a statutory appellate remedy under Section 24(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act.

It held that an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was not maintainable before the Rent Controller and that the petitioner’s bare claim of co-ownership did not confer upon him the status of a landlord or establish that he was a necessary or proper party to the eviction petition.

The pending applications, if any, were also dismissed; no order as to costs was made.

The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 24 September 2026 at 10:00 a.m.