Rent Control proceedings are summary procedure.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 11.06.2004 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2004 in HRCOP No.46 of 2003 on the file of Rent Controller at Pondicherry.)

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 11.06.2004 in I.A.No.32 of 2004 in HRCOP No.46 of 2003 by the Rent Controller at Pondicherry, in and by which, the Rent Controller has permitted the landlady to file proof affidavit as a substitute of her statements in the chief examination. This act of accepting proof affidavit is disputed by the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submitted that Rule 5 of Order 18 C.P.C. contra to Rule 4 of the same, requires evidence and not proof affidavit in appealble cases of this nature. Even if provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to Rent Control process as was so held in Sakunthala and others ..vs..A.Devi (1999 (1) M.L.J.101), Rule 13 (2) of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1980, also requires notes of evidence.

3. What is contained in Rule 13(2) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1980 is as follows:

13 Procedure for the dismissal of the applications:-

(2) The Controller or the authorised officer or an officer, authorised by him, as the case may be, shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their Case. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and of the witnesses, if any, examined on either side; and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties, pass orders on the application".

4. Even though Civil Procedure Code may not be very much applicable for the proceedings of the Rent Controller, it is worthwhile to go into Order 18 Rule 4 and 5 to feel the impact of the amendment made in that provision to the effect that "in every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence". This amendment was made with effect from 01.07.2002 by Act 46 of 1992 and Act 22 of 2002.

5. Rule 5 of Order 18 C.P.C.deals as to how evidence shall be taken in appealable cases. That provides,

"in cases in which an appeal is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be-

(a) taken in the language of the Court-

(i) in writing by or in the presence or under the personal direction and Superintendence of the Judge, or

(ii) from the dictation of the Judge directly on a typewriter; or

(b) if the Judge, for reasons to be recorded, so directs, recorded mechanically in the language of the Court in the presence of the Judge"

6. Now that the order passed by the Rent Controller would be an appealable order, Rule 5 of Order 18 CPC alone would be applicable and hence, there is no question of acceptance of affidavit even in C.P.C.in cases of appealable orders. Thus it becomes clear that Order 18 Rule 5 permits not the proof affidavit in appealable cases. Rent control proceedings are summary in nature and Rule 13(2) of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1980, permits only notes of evidence.

7. Definition of 'Evidence' as defined in HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, FOURTH EDITION, VOL-17, is as follows:

I. Proof of facts: Evidence is the usual means of providing or disproving a fact or matter in issue. The law of evidence indicates what may properly be introduced by a party (that is, what is admissible), and also what standard of proof is necessary (that is, the quality or quantity of evidence necessary in any particular case). In short, the law of evidence governs the means and manner in which a party may substantiate his own case, or refute that of his opponent".

8. Evidence as defined in section 3(1) of Evidence Act is as follows:

"Evidence: "Evidence" means and includes-

(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witne