Facts of the Case

  • Eviction Petition Filed: The landlord, late Shri Narinder Kumar Sood, filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (the "Rent Control Act") for Shop No. 59-B, Lower Bazar, Shimla, on the grounds of bonafide requirement. The landlord asserted that he required the premises to conduct business alongside his son, Rupin Sood, who was stated to be unemployed.
  • Substitution of Legal Representatives: Following the demise of the original landlord on May 13, 2019, his son, Rupin Sood, was brought on record as his successor and legal representative.
  • Tenant's Objection and Discovery Demand: The tenant, Jatinder Singh Kukreja, filed a detailed reply asserting that the eviction petition was filed with malafide intentions. The tenant contended that Rupin Sood was not unemployed but was actively running businesses under the names "M/s Sood Agency" and "Sood Enterprises" at building 59/2, Lower Bazar, Shimla.
  • Interrogatories and Document Production Moved: To secure evidence, the tenant moved an application before the Rent Controller under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The application sought to compel the landlord to answer formal interrogatories regarding business ownership, GST/Sales Tax registrations, and income tax payments, alongside a notice to produce past 10 years of sales tax/GST returns and income tax returns of the firms.
  • Landlord’s Counter-Response: The landlord opposed the application, stating that he was merely a street hawker purchasing petty articles for retail sale under Sood Enterprises and had no connection as a proprietor to M/s Sood Agency. He contended that the application was a dilatory tactic to stall a 12-year-old litigation.
  • Rent Controller’s Rejection: On January 2, 2025, the Rent Controller dismissed the tenant’s application citing an unexplained delay of nine years in moving the discovery application and noted a history of multiple procedural applications filed by the tenant to drag out the trial. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant moved the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act constitutes a "Court of civil jurisdiction" within the ambit of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  2. Whether the elaborate provisions of the CPC concerning interrogatories, discovery, and inspection of documents (Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14) are applicable proprio vigore (by their own force) to summary proceedings conducted under the Rent Control Act.
  3. Whether the procedural guidance given under Rule 12 of the H.P. Rent Control Rules permits the wholesale invocation of regular civil suit procedures, or if it limits the application of CPC principles strictly to specific stages like recording evidence and adjournments.

Petitioner’s (Tenant's) Arguments

  • Relevance of Discovery for Adjudication: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the discovery of financial documents and answers to interrogatories were crucial to exposing the landlord’s falsehood regarding his son's unemployment, which went to the root of the bonafide requirement claim.
  • Applicability via Section 141 CPC: The petitioner maintained that pursuant to Section 141 of the CPC, the procedure prescribed for regular civil suits extends to all proceedings within a court of civil jurisdiction, including rent control matters.
  • Judicial Precedents Imploring Order XI: The petitioner placed strong reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in A.K. Aggarwal v. Shanti Devi (1996) and the Kerala High Court judgment in P.M. Parthakumar v. Shri Venugopalan & Ors. (2009) to assert that discovery and inspection provisions are fully applicable to rent proceedings.
  • Independence from Amendment Rejection: It was further argued that the Rent Controller erred by mixing this discovery application with the previous dismissal of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as the two operated under entirely distinct legal parameters.

Respondent’s (Landlord's) Arguments

  • Intentional Protraction of Litigation: Senior Counsel for the respondent highlighted that the rent petition had been pending for over twelve years. The tenant was systematically moving procedural applications, such as the previously rejected amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (which was dismissed up to the High Court), solely to delay eviction.
  • Rent Act as a Complete Self-Contained Code: The respondent argued that the Rent Control Act is a special enactment and a complete code in itself. The general provisions of the CPC do not apply to it unless specifically incorporated by the legislature.
  • Rent Controller as Persona Designata: Relying on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions in Pitman’s Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons (1949) and Shiv Kumar v. Rajesh Bala (2021), along with coordinate bench rulings of the HP High Court (Dev Raj Duggal v. Harish Kumar; Puran Chand v. Subramaniam), the respondent argued that Rent Controllers are persona designata and not standard Civil Courts. Hence, Section 141 CPC cannot be used to introduce Order XI.
  • Subsequent Compliance/Production: The landlord pointed out that they had already annexed the requisite street vending license, income tax returns, and GST returns along with a stay vacation application (CMP No. 10394 of 2026) before the High Court, rendering the discovery application moot.

Court Order / Findings

  • Rent Controller is Persona Designata, Not a Civil Court: The High Court observed that under Section 2(c) and Section 24 of the Rent Control Act, the State Government appoints specific individuals to act as Controllers and Appellate Authorities. Adopting the principles settled by the historic Full Bench in Pitman’s Shorthand Academy, the Court held that the Rent Controller is persona designata (a person designated individually by statute) and does not act as a regular Court of civil jurisdiction.
  • Inapplicability of Section 141 CPC: Since the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court stricto sensu, the provisions of Section 141 of the CPC cannot be invoked to apply the Code’s miscellaneous procedures to rent proceedings.
  • Limited Window of CPC via Rule 12: The Court examined Rule 12 of the H.P. Rent Control Rules and concluded that the legislature only intended for the Rent Controller to be guided by the principles of the CPC for specific summary tasks—namely recording evidence, fixing dates, ordering adjournments, or dismissing for default. It explicitly prohibits the wholesale application of the cumbersome, lengthy, and regular trial procedures of the CPC.
  • Explicit Inclusions Prove General Exclusion: The Court reasoned that had the legislature intended to apply the entire CPC, it would not have expressly specified certain provisions across the Act (e.g., Section 25 for summoning witnesses, Section 26 for executions, Rule 5 for verification under Order VI). The omission of Order XI confirms it was intentionally excluded to ensure speedy disposal.
  • Dismissal of the Petition: Finding that an application under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14 CPC is fundamentally not maintainable before a Rent Controller, and noting the tenant's evident attempt to stall the 12-year-old case, the High Court dismissed the petition along with all pending applications without costs. The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on June 15, 2026, to proceed with the matter.

Important Clarification

Key Legal Takeaway: The High Court clarified that the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1968, and the rules framed thereunder form a complete code designed for summary adjudication. Rent Controllers possess limited statutory powers and are merely guided by procedural CPC principles for trial management under Rule 12. Litigants cannot directly transplant complex civil trial mechanisms—such as formal interrogatories or document discovery under Order XI CPC—into summary rent proceedings, as doing so defeats the legislative intent of swift dispute resolution between landlords and tenants.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India: Article 227 (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court).
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 141 (Miscellaneous proceedings); Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 & 14 (Interrogatories, Discovery, and Production of Documents); Section 151 (Inherent powers of the Court); Order VI Rules 14 & 15 (Signing and Verification of pleadings).
  • H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1968: Section 2(c) (Definition of Controller); Section 14 (Eviction of tenants); Section 24 (Appellate Authority and Revisions); Section 25 (Power to summon witnesses); Section 26 (Execution of orders).
  • H.P. Rent Control Rules: Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5 (Verification), and Rule 12 (Procedure to be followed by Controller).

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783068203_457compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.