Rajamannar, C. J.-The only question which demands consideration from us in this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is whether the Rent Controller has not the power to summon witnesses other than public servants by the issue of subpoenas. These petitions came originally before Govinda Menon, J., who made the following order:

“Post before a Bench whether the Rent Controller has any power inherent or otherwise to summon witnesses.”

Counsel in this case have not been able to draw our attention to any decided case, reported or unreported, dealing with this question. We are therefore left with the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed under the Act.

The applications in question are under section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, for fixation of fair rent. But the same question would arise even as regards applications under other sections of the Act. It is obvious that though generally Controllers have been persons belonging to the judicial service they are not Courts and therefore the proceedings before them will not be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 17 of the Act confers powers on the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, and, without prejudice to the generality of this power, the rules may provide inter alia for

(b) the procedure to be followed by Controllers and appellate authorities in the performance of their functions under this Act.

(c) the manner in which notices and orders under this Act shall be given or served.

Section 17(4) declares that

“all rules made under this section shall be published in the Fort St. George Gazette and upon such publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act”.

Now we turn to the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1951, which are applicable to these cases. Rule 8 prescribes the particulars which should be contained in every application under the Act. Rule 9(1) provides for issue of notice to the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application. Rule 9(2) says that the Controller shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case and he shall record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and 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. Rule 15 confers powers on the Controller and the appellate authority in cases falling under section 5 of the Act or in any other case under the Act, if he thinks fit to do so, to personally inspect the building concerned. Rule 22 specifically provides for the service of summons issued under section 12-E. That section empowers the Controller in his discretion to issue summons to public servants requiring them to attend in person to give evidence or to produce documents in their custody in connection with any proceedings before him. Rule 24 is in our opinion most material for the consideration of the question before us. The following sub-rules of Rule 24 are relevant:-

(1) Every summons issued under the Act shall be in writing, shall be authenticated by the seal, if any, of the officer by whom it is issued, and shall be signed by such officer or by any person authorised by him in writing in that behalf.

(2) It shall require the person summoned to appear before the said officer at a stated time and place and shall specify whether his attendance is required for the purpose of giving evidence, or to produce a document or for both purposes ; and any particular document the production of which is required shall be described in the summons with reasonable accuracy.

(3) Any person may be summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced, instead of attending personally to produce the same.

Sub-rule (4) provides for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document