IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Revision No.42 of 2023 a/w Civil Revision Nos.43 to 46 of 2023 .

Date of Decision: September 16, 2023

1. Civil Revision No.42 of 2023 Puran Chand …Petitioner.

Versus Subramaniam ..Respondent.

2. Civil Revision No.43 of 2023 Kishori Lal t …Petitioner.

Versus Subramaniam ..Respondent.

3. Civil Revision No.44 of 2023 Ram Simran …Petitioner.

Versus gSubramaniam ..Respondent.

i4. Civil Revision No.45 of 2023 Harish Kumar & another …Petitioners.

Versus Subramaniam ..Respondent.

5. Civil Revision No.46 of 2023 Seema Devi …Petitioner.

Versus Subramaniam ..Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Anuj Nag, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Ganesh BarowaliHa, Advocate, vice Mr.Nitin Thakur, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)

These petitions, for inovolvement of common question of fact and law, required to be adjudicated, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. By way uof these petitions, petitioners have assailed even dated orders passed on 06.01.2023 by Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P., in Case Nos.66 of 2019, titled as Subramaniam vs. Puran Chand; 68 of 2019, titled as Subramaniam vs. Kishori Lal; 69 of 2019, titled as Subramaniam vs. Raj Simran; 67 of 2019, titled as Subramaniam vs. Harish Kumar & another; and 70 of

2019, titled as Subramaniam vs. Seema Devi.

H3. For convenience, parties shall be referred hereinafter, in terms of their status before the Rent Controller.

4. Vide impugned order dated 06.01.2023, Rent Controller has dismissed the applications preferred by the respective tenants in their respective petitions, filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), for appointment of Local Commissioner to verify and ascertain the area being occupied by the tenants and the area in possession of the landlord so as to bring that information on record.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

5. Applications were opposed by the landlord on the ground that all such information had already been supplied to the Court as well as to the tenants in applications preferred by them under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by giving com.plete detail in response to the interrogatories served by the tenants and the applications under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC h ave been filed in order to delay the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the tenants has submitted that object of filing of applications was not to collect the evidence, but was to ascertain true and factual position which was necessary for adjudication of the Rent Petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the landlord submits that Rent Petitions were filed in March 2019 and these were listed for evidence in December 2019, but at that time evidence could not be recorded because tenants had preferred applications under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as well as Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, which were adjudicated and, for answering interrogatories in applications under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the said applications were disposed of being infructuous and application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was dismissed.

8. Rent Petitions were again listed for recording evidence on 22.10.2022, but the tenants moved applications under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, which have been dismissed vide order(s) dated 06.01.2023, which have been assailed in present petitions.

9. Learned counsel for the landlord has further submitted that filing of applications is tactics to delay the adjudication of Eviction Petitions, despite the fact that applications under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, were not m.aintainable at all.

10. Learned counsel for the landl ord to substantiate his plea has referred judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in Roshni Devi vs. Man Chand, reported in 2017(1) Shim. LC 220, wherein it has been held that Local Commissioner could not be appointed to collect the evidence for either party.

11. It is settled that in case there is possibility of resolution of dispute