JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These are two writ petitions, which engage consideration of a common question of fact and law, hence they are being decided together.

(A) In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1914 of 2019, Ram Singh Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal, the challenge given by the petitioner, is to the order dated 30.05.2019, as passed on his application paper No. 15 (Ga), which was preferred by him in Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2018, as well as the order dated 30.05.2019, yet again as passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2018, in the said Rent Control Appeal, whereby paper No. 20(ga) has been rejected and as a consequence thereto, the application under Order 41 Rule 27, to be read with Application under Sections 151/152 of CPC has been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Ram Nagar, District Nainital.

(B) Whereas, the connected Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1803 of 2019, Nandan Singh and others Vs. Sarvesh Kumar Mittal, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of the like date i.e. 30.05.2019, passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 2018, whereby an application paper No. 16(ga) has been rejected, as well as the order of the like date whereby application paper No. 21(ga) in the same Rent Control Appeal, preferred under Section 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 has been rejected. Consequently, resulting to rejection of application under Order 41 Rule 27 to be read with Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ram Nagar, District Nainital.

2. Hence, the following judgement.

3. Before venturing into the rival contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the parties to the present writ petitions, which emanates from the consideration of Applications, which were preferred by the petitioner/tenant before the Appellate Court, by invoking the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, as well as the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, which has been sought to be invoked by the petitioners/tenant during the pendency of the appellate Court proceedings which were being held under the Act No. 13 of 1972, at the stage wherein an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, was pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. This Court feels it necessary to observe and deal, as to what is the genesis and the source of the legislative powers, so far it relates to legislating the rent laws by the State, the source of the same has been derived from Entry 18 of Schedule VII List II of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:-

“18. Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization."

4. Schedule VII of the Constitution of India; List II, the powers to legislate the laws governing the relation of the landlord and the tenant has been exclusively made as a State subject. Meaning thereby any judicial precedence, relied which was arising in relation to rent laws applicable in other States, which otherwise happens to be a prerogative of that particular State, would be exclusively governed by the provisions of rent laws, as applicable in it. The ratios derived to be applied, therein would not apply in the instant case until and unless the ratios or the precedence, relied by the counsel for the petitioner has been laid down, identically by the Hon'ble Apex Court; in relation to the rent laws which are applicable to the State i.e. the State of Uttarakhand or is containing similar or identical procedural provisions of rent law applicable in other states, and is similar to that of State of Uttarakhand. Yet again, this Court before answering the propriety of the application filed by the petitioner tenant under Order 6 Rule 17, as well as Order 41 Rule 27, it deems it necessary to deal the circumstances and necessity which is alleged to have arisen, to file the same, because in the set o