D.B. Lal, J.
1. This is a civil revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and has been directed against the order dated 28-11-1970 of the Rent Controller. Simla. The facts which give rise to this petition may be stated.
2. Lt. Col. K.M. Sayeed and four others claimed to be trustees of a certain Mulsim Trust which is stated to own some properties in the town Simla. They filed a petition before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the respondents who are their tenants. During the course of litigation, two of the trustees tendered resignation and in their place the Government appointed one Dr. Yusuf Hussain Khan as a new trustee. Accordingly an application was given by the petitioners that Dr. Yusuf Russian Khan be substituted in place of the two trustees who have since resigned. The learned Rent Controller importing the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code granted the prayer and ordered for the substitution. The respondents have felt aggrieved of the decision and have come up in revision.
3. It was contended at the outset, that the revision petition is not maintainable because an appeal could be filed either under Order 43. Rule 1. Civil Procedure Code or under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1958 (1949?) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that Order 22, Rule 10. Civil Procedure Code could not be applied because the provisions of the Code are not wholly applicable to a proceeding under the Act. This has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents because, according to him, such principles of the Code which are based on natural justice and which are not contrary to the specific provisions of the Act could be imported and applied to a proceeding under the Act. As I have stated before, if the said provision of the Civil Procedure Code was applicable, an appeal could be filed under Order 43. Rule 1 of that Code. However, if the provision of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable, an appeal could be filed under Section 15 of the Act. This would be a short ground to dismiss the petition.
4. It may however, be considered proper to deal with the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In 1965 Cur. LJ 214 (Puni). Pavara Singh v. Mahant Gurmukh Dass, which is a case under the Act, the inherent powers as contemplated under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code were considered to exist in favour of the Tribunal under the Act and an amendment of pleadings was permitted. 59 Pun LR 38 = (AIR 1957 Punj 72) Manohar Lal v. Mohan Lal, is again a case where the inherent powers to set aside an ex parte order were held to exist in favour of the Rent Controller. In (1957) 59 Pun LR 45. Mathra Das v. Om Parkash, it was laid down that the procedure before the Rent Controller is required to be orderly and consistent with the Rules of natural justice and so long as it does not contravene the positive provisions of the law, the elementary and fundamental principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure should be observed although technical forms may be discarded. In my opinion, this would be a correct law on the subject. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code being in consonance with the principles of natural justice can very well be made applicable to a proceeding before the Rent Controller subject to the condition that no contrary provisions exist in the Act itself.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to his aid (1968) 70 Pun LR (D) 174, M/s. Lachhman Dass Sain Ditta Mal v. Hanumant Dass Sud. In that case. Order 23, Rule I of the Code was not made applicable to a proceeding under the Act, because of a conflicting provision that existed in Section 14 of the Act. As such, the facts of that case are distinguishable.
6. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the learned Rent Controller has rightly substituted a new trustee in place of the two old ones who have since resigned. He cannot be stated to have either failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him or to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him. Nor can it be stated that he acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The respondents will have to face their landlords at any rate. Even if the present petition is asked to be rejected, the landlords would file another petition of ejectment and that would only prolong the proceeding.
7. In the circumstances. I do not find any grounds for admission in favour of the petition and hereby reject the same.
8. No order is made as to costs.