The main legal point established is that the Rent Controller can proceed with its own procedure but shall be guided by the principles of procedure as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, and the applicability of CPC provisions in rent petition proceedings.

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The petitioner – Umesh Gupta has filed revision against impugned order dated 01.11.2019 passed by Rent Controller, Hissar in Rent Petition No.32-Rent of 2018 titled as “Monika Singal vs. Umesh Gupta” vide which the application filed by the respondent i.e. the present petition under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC has been declined.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent-landlady filed eviction petition against the present petitioner/tenant on different grounds. The copy of rent petition is Annexure P-4 and the written statement filed by him is Annexure P-5. After framing of issues the case was fixed for the petitioner evidence. The petitioner examined as many as seven witnesses but she did not step into the witness box. As per the mandate of Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC, the petitioner-Monika Singal was required to step into the witness box first and in case she was to appear later on she was required to take permission from the Court. The present petitioner raised objection and filed application under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC which has been wrongly declined by passing impugned order dated 01.11.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Umesh Gupta has referred to Section 16 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 which deals with the powers of Rent Controller to summon and enforce attendance of the witness as provided under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He has also referred to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC which required the plaintiff to step into the witness box first and in case the plaintiff opted to appear later on then permission of the Court was required. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller has gravely erred in law and indicates overlooking the aforesaid provisions of CPC. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Hissar may kindly be set aside and the respondent may kindly be directed to obtain specific permission from the Court for deposing as a witness in the rent petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the present civil revision has been filed only to delay the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The application filed by the petitioner-Umesh Gupta i.e. the respondent in the main case under Order 18 Rule 3-A, read with Section 151 of CPC was rightly rejected. The provisions of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings which are carried out by the Rent Controller except the provisions which are expressly made applicable under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The facts of the case and the legal provisions were rightly appreciated by the Rent Controller. He has again relied upon the authority cited in 2016(1)Rent LR 106 of Coordinate Bench in case titled as “Krishan Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal (since deceased) through his LRs” wherein it was held that:-

“12. Apparently, the Controller is only guided by the principle of procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, and that too, only for the purpose specifically indicated in the rule. And is, thus, not obliged to adhere to any specific provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, except for summoning and enforcing attendance of the witnesses in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, even by the most convenient construction of these provisions, the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be brought in either expressly or by necessary implication. Meaning thereby, strict provisions of CPC shall not apply to the proceedings under the Act and only those provisions of the Code shall be made applicable, which the Act specifically provides.

13. Thus, the only and the inevitable conclusion that could be reached is that provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of CPC shall not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Act.”

Therefore, the application filed by the present petitioner was rightly declined and the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 does not require any interferenc