The Rent Controller should have issued the summons to the witness and should have forced the attendance of the witness in the court and in case the witness had refused to attend the court inspite of the service of the summons then the Rent Controller should have taken recourse to other provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for enforcing the attendance of witness because the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for enforcing the attendance of witnesses, etc. are applicable in Rent proceedings.

V. P. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 28th November, 1^77 pissed by the Rent Controller (() Simla, whereby he closed the remaining evidence of respondent-landlord (present petitioner).

2. The brief facts are that Kirpa Ram tenant (present respondent) filed an application under section 4 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on 23.7.1971 and prayed that the fair rent of the premises occupied by him under Smt. Dayawanti and others landlords be fixed after necessary enquiries as envisaged under the law. This application was contested by the landlords and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 25-5-1972: “1. What is the fair rent of the premises in dispute? (O. P. Parties)

2. Whether the respondents effected improvements in the premises in dispute after 1938-A. D., if so, its effect ? (OPR)

3. Relief. Thereafter the case proceeded for the evidence of the parties. The evidence of the tenant-respondent was closed in the affirmative on 8-8-73 and the case was fixed for landlord-petitioners evidence. Some of the petitioners evidence was recorded on 13-3-74 and thereafter it was fixed for the remaining evidence of the petitioners. The petitioners wanted to produce the Overseer of the Municipal Committee, Simla as their witness, but, this witness had not been properly served for 5 3-75, although from the record, it appears, that he Had been served. The witness was not present and hence the Rent Controller ordered that the case be fixed for remaining evidence of the petitioners for 5-5-75. Thereafter adjournments were allowed for evidence of the petitioners and the various orders show that their evidence could not be completed and the court had been allowing time to summon the evidence on payment of the process-fees. On 21-3-77 the court passed the order that only one RW, i.e. Overseer of the Municipal Committee, remains to be examined and opportunity for producing this witness was given. It was further ordered that the summons for the witnesses be taken Dasti and that the landlords-petitioners should produce the witness on the next date i. e. 28-11-77. It was further ordered that if they failed to adduce the evidence on 28-11-77 then the evidence will be deemed to have been closed as several opportunities had been given for producing the evidence.

3. On 28-11-77 the Municipal Overseer was not present and as such the Rent Controller passed the impugned order closing the evidence.

4. Shri Chhabil Dass Sood appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the order of the Rene Controller dated 28-11-77 is patently wrong and without jurisdiction and that the petitioners could not be directed or ordered to take Dasti summons for the witness who was an employee of the Municipal Committee. It is contended by him that he had repeatedly been filing process-fees for summoning the witness and that it was the duty of the court to have issued summonses and got the service effected upon the witness in accordance with law. It is also contended by him that the correct address of the witness had been supplied and that his diet money had already been deposited. In support of his contention. he ha? drawn my attention to the provisions of Order 16 Rule I, C. P. C. and has also referred to Shri Ghanan Singh v. Shri R. R. Sharma, 1977 (i) RLR 32.

5. It is further contended by Shri Cahabil Dass Sood learned counsel for the petitioners that in an application under section 4 of the Act it is the duty of the Rent Controller to find out the fair rent and that if any evidence is available, then the Rent Controller should record that evidence and the duty to make the enquiry regarding the fair rent is of the Rent Controller. It is also contended that the evidence of the Municipal records or the evidence of the official witness of the Municipal Committee was the best available evidence for such an enquiry and as such the Rent Controller should himself have taken care of summoning and r