K.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Ram Datta, Gupta Petitioner, is a tenant under Respondent No. 2 in a building, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the Act, Before the Rent Controller, Gudgeon, to evict the Petitioner from the building The Petitioner raised preliminary objections in his reply to the application filed before the Rent Controller. One of the objections was that a similar application bad been earlier dismissed by the Rent Controller on the same grounds and for that reason the present application required a summary dismissal. After considering the arguments, the learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated April 29, 1974, rejected, the preliminary objections. The matter was taken in revision before the Financial Commissioner Haryana (Respondent No. 1). The only controversy raised by the Petitioner before the Financial Commissioner has been summarized by the latter in paragraph 2 of his order (copy Annexure P/1) as "the only point urged before roe in the this case by the counsel for the present Petitioner -tenant is that the Rent Controller has committed an impropriety and illegality by disposing of his "Petitioner tenant's preliminary objections in a summary manner, without framing necessary issues regarding these preliminary objections". Respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties and discussing the relevant case law cited before him came to the conclusion that a Rent Controller functioning under the Act is to devise his own procedure and is not bound to frame issues to cover the points of controversy between the parties in the matter before him. The Financial Commissioner refused to quash the order dated April 29, 1974, of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon. The Petitioner has now approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari and quashing the order of Respondent No 1, dated November 10, 197(sic), dismissing his revision, and issuing a direction to the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, for framing the issues in the case.
(2.) BEFORE the Motion Bench, Shri N. C. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, stated that no application was filed before the Rent Controller Gurgaon, asking him to frame the issues in the case but since this matter was agitated before Respondent No. 1 and his order on the point of non -framing of issues has been challenged in this petition, we propose to decide it. The only point involved in this petition and requiring decision by this Court is whether a Rent Controller acting under the Act is bound to frame issues on the points on which the parties are at dispute in the proceedings pending before him. The ancillary questions also arise whether the Rent Controller appointed under the Act is a civil Court and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) apply to the proceedings in cases instituted before the Rent Controller and whether these proceedings are covered by Section 141 of the Code.
(3.) THE provisions of the Act are in pari materia with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act. No. III of 1949), which prior to the coming into force of the Act was applicable in Haryana. Shri N. C. Jain, on behalf of the Petitioner, has argued that the proceedings before the Rent Controller functioning under the Act are proceedings of civil nature and in the cases decided under the East Punjab Act III, the provisions of the Code have been held to be applicable to the proceedings before these authorities.;