HARI CHAND Vs. ISHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dt. Mar. 12, 1985, whereby the landlord was directed to furnish better particulars as contemplated under O.6, R.5, Civil P.C., on the application filed on behalf of the tenant.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said provisions of the Civil P.C. were not applicable in the proceedings before the Rent Controller and, therefore, no such order could be passed directing the landlord to furnish better particulars under O.6, R.5, Civil P.C. In support of this contention, reference was made to Ram Dass v. Smt. Sukhdev Kaur, AIR 1981 Punj and Har 301 and Dev Pal Kashyap, Advocate v. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan, Cloth Merchants, (1983) 2 Ren CJ 234 (Punj and Har).

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The authorities relied upon have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The Rent Controller being persona designata is entitled to adopt any procedure which is found by him to be in the interest of justice unless it is prohibited by any statute or otherwise. The provisions of O.6, R.5, Civil P.C., are such which contemplate a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading; and the same can in all cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just. Such a procedure could certainly be adopted by the Rent Controller in order to do justice between the parties. The Rent Restriction Act does not contain any bar to adopt this procedure. Moreover, certain provisions of the Civil P.C. are such which are inherent with the constitution of a Tribunal or a Court. The provisions of O.6, R.5, Civil P.C., are of such a nature. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is consequently dismissed with costs. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on Sept. 13,1985. Petition dismissed.