The Rent Controller is not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in eviction proceedings and is free to devise appropriate procedures for deciding applications before him.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. The order dated 19.9.1994 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hisar permitting the respondents tenant to recall the witness Om Parkash has been challenged in this petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for ejectment is pending against the respondents before the learned Rent Controller, Hisar. Evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners has been completed. When the case was fixed for the evidence of the tenant (defendant-respondent No. 1), on 16.8.1994 the tenant made a statement that he had changed his Advocate on that day itself and requested that he may be given one more opportunity. He undertook to produce all witnesses on the next date. On the same very day, the tenant made another statement that witness Om Parkash had been won over by the petitioners after the last date of hearing and, therefore, he did not want to examine the said witness. The case was adjourned to the next date. On the adjourned date an application was made on behalf of the respondent-defendant (tenant) purportedly under Order 18, Rules 17 and 17-A, C.P.C., for examination of Om Parkash as a witness. The landlord-petitioner opposed the application on the ground that the said witness had already been given up by the tenant on the previous date and there was no legal justification to permit the tenant to examine the same witness.

3. After hearing the rival contentions, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it was in the interest of justice to permit the respondent-defendant tenant to examine Om Parkash as his witness.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated before this Court that Om Parkash has already been examined before the Court on 3.10.1994. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that Om Parkash has not been cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners because the latter had already filed a revision petition before this Court and a notice had already been issued therein.

5. In support of the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the case of the respondent-tenant was not covered by the provisions of Order 18, Rules 17 and 17-A, C.P.C. and, therefore, it was not open to the learned Rent Controller to have given permission for the recall of Om Parkash as a witness. Learned counsel submitted that once the respondent-tenant had consciously given up Om Parkash as his witness there could be no justification for accepting his request for further examination said Shri Om Parkash. Mr. Jaswant Jain, on the other hand, argued, that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not expressly applicable to the eviction proceedings and, therefore, the mere fact that in the application a reference has been made to the provision of C.P.C. is not sufficient to reject the same.

6. After having carefully gone through the reasoning assigned by the learned Rent Controller, I am fully convinced that the impugned order passed by him does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court. It has not been shown to me that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable in a strict sense to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller is free to devise appropriate procedure for deciding the application filed before him. In a given case, it may be possible for him to follow the provisions of the C.P.C. However, that cannot be equated with a situation wherein the Rent Controller should be treated as bound by the provision of C.P.C. I am also of the view that the mere mention of the provisions of Order 18, Rules 17 and 17-A, C.P.C. in the application could not have been a ground to reject the application filed by the respondent-tenant.

7. Mr. Jaswant Jain has pointed out that Om Parkash was the ex-landlord and the respondent has sought, reexamination of the said witness in order to prove the fact that he had already paid the rent to his ex-landlord. If th