Jatinder Singh Kukreja vs. Narinder Kumar Sood

Held

The High Court held that the application filed by the tenant under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC was not maintainable before the Rent Controller. The Court reasoned that the Rent Control Act and Rent Rules prescribe a specific procedure for proceedings, and while Rule 12 of the Rent Rules states that the Rent Controller shall be guided by the principles of the CPC, this guidance is limited to matters specified in Rule 12, such as recording evidence and giving parties an opportunity to state their case. The Court found that Section 141 of the CPC does not make the entire CPC strictly applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act when a specific procedure is already laid down. The Court also noted that the application was filed at a late stage, when the case was fixed for the landlord's evidence, and that the tenant had already filed a rejoinder and had opportunities for cross-examination. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Rent Controller's order. The Court also noted that relevant documents were subsequently filed with a separate application (CMP No. 10394 of 2026), but this did not alter the maintainability of the original application.

Facts

The petitioner, Jatinder Singh Kukreja (tenant), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated January 2, 2025, by the Rent Controller, Shimla. The Rent Controller dismissed the tenant's application filed under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This application sought directions for the landlord, Narinder Singh Sood, to answer interrogatories and produce documents. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord on the grounds of bonafide requirement. The tenant contended that the landlord's son, Rupin Sood, who was claimed to be unemployed, was actually running businesses named M/s Sood Agency and Sood Enterprises and paying sales tax/GST. The tenant sought documents related to these businesses to prove the landlord's alleged malafide intention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application filed by the tenant under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12, and 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC was maintainable before the Rent Controller, considering the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act and Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act' and 'Rent Rules')? The petitioner argued that Section 141 of the CPC makes its provisions applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act. The respondents contended that the Rent Control Act and Rules provide a specific procedure, and the application under CPC was not maintainable, especially as the case was fixed for the landlord's evidence and the tenant had other opportunities to cross-examine. The respondents also argued that the application was moved to delay the proceedings. The Court also considered whether the Rent Controller was correct in dismissing the application at the stage of the landlord's evidence.