Rent Controllers under the Rent Control Act are persona designata, not civil courts. The Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in its entirety; only specific provisions and principles expressly incorporated into the Rent Control Act and its Rules apply to proceedings before the Controller.

Petitioner-Jitender Singh Kukreja has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 2nd January, 2025, passed in CMA No. 3007 of 2024, in Rent Case No. 59/2 of 2017/2014.

2. By way of order, dated 2nd January, 2025, the learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Controller’) has dismissed the application, filed under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 and 14, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), moved by the petitioner.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Rent Controller.

4. Facts, in brief, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, necessary for the adjudication of the present lis, may be summed up, as under:

4.1. Landlord-Narinder Kumar Sood has filed the petition, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Control Act’), with respect to Shop No. 59-B, Lower Bazar, Shimla, measuring 7 x 15 feet, on the ground of bonafide requirement by him.

4.2. As per the stand taken by the landlord, he wanted to do the business in the premises, alongwith his son, Rupin Sood. In the said petition, for eviction, the tenant has moved the application, under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking direction to the landlord to answer the interrogatories and further, for production/discovery of the documents.

4.3. The said application has been moved on the ground that Rupin Sood is successor of the landlord-late Shri Narinder Kumar Sood and said Rupin Sood has been brought on record as his legal representative. As per the application, the eviction of the tenant has been sought on the ground, that the landlord wants to do the business in the premises and in the said business, his son Rupin Sood, who is stated to be unemployed, is going to help him.

4.4. The landlord is stated to have filed another eviction application, which was withdrawn on 20th January, 2014.

4.5. According to the tenant, in the eviction petition, he has filed the detailed reply, by taking various pleas. It has also been pleaded in the reply that the son of the landlord, i.e. Rupin Sood, is carrying out business in the name and style of M/s Sood Agency and Sood Enterprises in 59/2, Lower Bazar, Shimla and is paying Sales Tax, whereas, the landlord has taken the plea that his son is unemployed.

4.6. As per the stand of the tenant, efforts were made by him to obtain the documents with respect to the business being run by said Rupin Sood. In this regard, the tenant has relied upon the wedding card of the first cousin of Rupin Sood, wherein, it has been said that Rupin Sood is running the business under the name and style of M/s Sood Agency and Sood Enterprises. Apart from this, the tenant has filed application before the Public Information Officer, Sales Tax Department, to obtain the information, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, however, the landlord and his son-Rupin Sood objected to the supply of the said information.

4.7. On the basis of the above facts, it has been pleaded that the petition for eviction has been filed with malafide intention, as, Rupin Sood is not unemployed and is having his own business in building – 59/2, Lower Bazar, Shimla.

4.8. By way of the application, filed before the learned Rent Controller, the following relief has