JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The tenant, during the pendency, of, Rent Petition No. 24-2 of 2017, before the learned Rent Controller concerned, instituted an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, casting therein averments, qua, (a) the demised premises being unamenable, for, being statutorily espoused qua theirs' being bonafidely required by the wife of the petitioner, for, enabling the latter to, upon, an order of eviction, being passed, upon, the afore petition, hers establishing therein, any, commercial enterprises, (b) and also espoused qua the afore ground, remaining ungrooved, in, apposite therewith statutorily facilitative apt grounds, (c) false averments being cast in the petition, for, sustaining the imperative statutory requirement qua, from, five years since, the, institution of the petition, for, eviction, the landlord, not vacating, any, commercial premises or seeking eviction therefrom, of, tenants' housed therein, (d) as, within the afore period hence in the month, of, February, 2017, rather premises occurring, in, the apt building, wherein also the demised premises also occur, hence standing leased, to M/s Sandeep jewelers, and, also within the afore period, and, in the year 2013, another premises occurring, in, the same building, being let out, to M/s Sai Hand Looms. Upon the afore motion a, dis-affirmative order, stood pronounced, hence by the learned Rent Controller, and, the petitioner standing aggrieved therefrom, has, hence cast a challenge thereon, by instituting the instant petition, before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, made a vehement, (a) contention before this Court, qua, the apt statutory provisions, borne in the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987, visibly not vesting any leverage, in the landlord, to, hence, on behalf of his wife, seek eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, (b) nor he can thereafter make any valid statutory espousal qua his wife, requiring the demised premises, for, enabling her, to, upon an order of eviction, being rendered, to operate, a, commercial enterprises therein. Consequently, he contends, that, rather within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and, more specifically, within, the ambit of clause (a), and, clause (d), thereupon an, empowerment, being, vested, in, the learned Rent Controller, to, reject the plaint, imminently, for, non-disclosure, of, valid causes of action, or, for, the plaint being hence barred, by law (e) and, he further contends qua the afore lack of statutory enablements in the landlord, to, on behalf, his wife, hence seek, on, the aforestated grounds, an, order, of, eviction being pronounced qua the demised premises, hence his constructing any valid cause of action, and, thereupon the rent petition being barred to be maintained, and, rather it warranting, its, dismissal, at, the initial stage. 3. However, the afore grounds, are, rather discountenanced, by this Court, (i) as, a thorough perusal, of, the statutory provisions, borne, in, the, H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, unfold theirs, not explicitly either vesting jurisdiction, in the learned Rent Controller, to apply, upon, the rent petition, the mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, (ii) nor, also any apt specific contemplation, stands, borne in Civil Procedure Code, hence making, the, afore, mandate applicable, vis-a-vis, a rent petition, (iii) reiteratedly, for, want, of, explicit applicability, of, the strived provisions, as, encapsulated in the CPC, vis-a-vis, a rent petition, for, therethroughs, alike the trial, of, the civil suit, hence by the learned civil court, being hence enabled also hence also trial being made, of, a, rent petition, hence by the learned Rent Controller concerned, (iv) thereupon the afore explicit wants, do constrain, this Court to conclude, qua the application, whereon a dis-affirmative order, was, pronounced, being mis-constituted, and, also the application, being outside, the ambit, of, the, apposite specific legislation, hence governing, and, appertaining to the trials of, an, eviction petition, rather by the learned Rent Controller concerned. 4. 4. Furthermore, dehors lack of any apt specific contemplation, in the applicable hereat special legislation, and appertaining, vis-a-vis, all the afores frontiers, (i) even Rule 12 borne in the H.P. Urban Rent Control, Rules 1990, does not, also with any explicit cast hence any injunction, upon, the Rent Controller concerned, to, upon his standing seized with, a, rent petition, his re-coursing the mandate, borne in the strived provisions, of, the CPC, hence appertaining, to, adoption, of, the requisite procedure, as, appertains, to, trial of, a, civil suit, hence, by the civil court concerned, (ii) rather with sub Rule (2) of rule 12, making, a, specific contemplation, qua, the Rent Controller concerned, being enjoined, to, ensure the, affording, of, a reasonable opportunity, to the contesting litigants, to, state their case, and also his being empowered, to, ensure recording of the evidence, of, the contesting litigants, and, (ii) further there onwards, with, a, specific provision, being also cast qua, vis-a-vis, the, ground of adjournments, and, vis-a-vis, upon, dismissal of application for default, thereupon, for sufficient reasons, the, learned Rent Controller concerned, being enjoined, to mete compliance, with, apposite therewith, provisions, as, cast in the CPC, 5. In aftermath, with, the afore explicit empowerments hence, appertaining, to, only, the, afore mandates, of, the CPC, being available, for, re-coursing, rather, by the Rent controller concerned, upon, his standing seized, with, a rent petition, (i) thereupon, with only the afore being explicitly enumerated therein, hence renders, the, afores, to, be the only ones, as, enumerated thereunder, and, the, unenumerated there within hence, the, mandates, of, the, strived hereat provisions, of, the CPC, are, deemed, to, be specifically excluded, and, nor, are recoursable hence by the learned Rent Controller concerned. Reiteratedly, since even Rule 12, of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Rules 1990, does not, empower, the learned Rent Controller, to, entertain, or, make an adjudication, upon, an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and, hence, the, impugned order, yet, does not warrant any interference, being made by this Court. 6. Be that as it may, rather all the afore forestallings, yet, cannot prejudice, the, tenant, to, canvass, the, afore lack, of, statutory enablement’s, vis-a-vis, the apt strivings, of, the respondent herein, as upon, cogent documentary evidence, standing adduced, vis-a-vis, the relevant issues, thereupon, the, learned Rent Controller, may be constrained, to, make inferences qua him. 7. 6. Be that as it may, rather all the afore forestallings, yet, cannot prejudice, the, tenant, to, canvass, the, afore lack, of, statutory enablement’s, vis-a-vis, the apt strivings, of, the respondent herein, as upon, cogent documentary evidence, standing adduced, vis-a-vis, the relevant issues, thereupon, the, learned Rent Controller, may be constrained, to, make inferences qua him. 7. Dehors the above, the further grounds, as, encapsulated, in the apt petition, qua, the, rent petition acquiring, the, taint, of, malafide(s), and, it being a colourable ground, is, also, not, a sufficient ground, to, conclude, that, either the rent petition, does not, at, an, incipient stage, hence disclose, any, valid accruable causes of action, or, it infracts the consonant therewith, provisions, cast in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, (i) conspicuously, given, this Court rendering, the, afore enablement’s, vis-a-vis, the petitioner herein. Concomitantly, also qua, the, secondary ground, though, the tenant, is, disabled to recourse, the, mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, yet the afore disablement, is, mitigated, upon, emergence, of, apt contentious issues, vis-a-vis, therewith, and, when thereafter, upon, his being permitted, to, adduce his evidence thereon(s), (ii) for, hence thereafter facilitating the learned Rent Controller concerned, to, return findings thereon, thereupon it would be premature, at, this stage, to, conclude that the afore ground, is, sufficient/merit worthy, to, make a conclusion, qua, the rent petition warranting dismissal, hence, at the incipient stage. 8. For the forgoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Any observation made herein above, shall not, be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned trial Court, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Any observation made herein above, shall not, be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned trial Court, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The tenant, during the pendency, of, Rent Petition No. 24-2 of 2017, before the learned Rent Controller concerned, instituted an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, casting therein averments, qua, (a) the demised premises being unamenable, for, being statutorily espoused qua theirs' being bonafidely required by the wife of the petitioner, for, enabling the latter to, upon, an order of eviction, being passed, upon, the afore petition, hers establishing therein, any, commercial enterprises, (b) and also espoused qua the afore ground, remaining ungrooved, in, apposite therewith statutorily facilitative apt grounds, (c) false averments being cast in the petition, for, sustaining the imperative statutory requirement qua, from, five years since, the, institution of the petition, for, eviction, the landlord, not vacating, any, commercial premises or seeking eviction therefrom, of, tenants' housed therein, (d) as, within the afore period hence in the month, of, February, 2017, rather premises occurring, in, the apt building, wherein also the demised premises also occur, hence standing leased, to M/s Sandeep jewelers, and, also within the afore period, and, in the year 2013, another premises occurring, in, the same building, being let out, to M/s Sai Hand Looms. Upon the afore motion a, dis-affirmative order, stood pronounced, hence by the learned Rent Controller, and, the petitioner standing aggrieved therefrom, has, hence cast a challenge thereon, by instituting the instant petition, before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, made a vehement, (a) contention before this Court, qua, the apt statutory provisions, borne in the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987, visibly not vesting any leverage, in the landlord, to, hence, on behalf of his wife, seek eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, (b) nor he can thereafter make any valid statutory espousal qua his wife, requiring the demised premises, for, enabling her, to, upon an order of eviction, being rendered, to operate, a, commercial enterprises therein. Consequently, he contends, that, rather within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and, more specifically, within, the ambit of clause (a), and, clause (d), thereupon an, empowerment, being, vested, in, the learned Rent Controller, to, reject the plaint, imminently, for, non-disclosure, of, valid causes of action, or, for, the plaint being hence barred, by law (e) and, he further contends qua the afore lack of statutory enablements in the landlord, to, on behalf, his wife, hence seek, on, the aforestated grounds, an, order, of, eviction being pronounced qua the demised premises, hence his constructing any valid cause of action, and, thereupon the rent petition being barred to be maintained, and, rather it warranting, its, dismissal, at, the initial stage. 3. However, the afore grounds, are, rather discountenanced, by this Court, (i) as, a thorough perusal, of, the statutory provisions, borne, in, the, H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, unfold theirs, not explicitly either vesting jurisdiction, in the learned Rent Controller, to apply, upon, the rent petition, the mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, (ii) nor, also any apt specific contemplation, stands, borne in Civil Procedure Code, hence making, the, afore, mandate applicable, vis-a-vis, a rent petition, (iii) reiteratedly, for, want, of, explicit applicability, of, the strived provisions, as, encapsulated in the CPC, vis-a-vis, a rent petition, for, therethroughs, alike the trial, of, the civil suit, hence by the learned civil court, being hence enabled also hence also trial being made, of, a, rent petition, hence by the learned Rent Controller concerned, (iv) thereupon the afore explicit wants, do constrain, this Court to conclude, qua the application, whereon a dis-affirmative order, was, pronounced, being mis-constituted, and, also the application, being outside, the ambit, of, the, apposite specific legislation, hence governing, and, appertaining to the trials of, an, eviction petition, rather by the learned Rent Controller concerned. 4. 4. Furthermore, dehors lack of any apt specific contemplation, in the applicable hereat special legislation, and appertaining, vis-a-vis, all the afores frontiers, (i) even Rule 12 borne in the H.P. Urban Rent Control, Rules 1990, does not, also with any explicit cast hence any injunction, upon, the Rent Controller concerned, to, upon his standing seized with, a, rent petition, his re-coursing the mandate, borne in the strived provisions, of, the CPC, hence appertaining, to, adoption, of, the requisite procedure, as, appertains, to, trial of, a, civil suit, hence, by the civil court concerned, (ii) rather with sub Rule (2) of rule 12, making, a, specific contemplation, qua, the Rent Controller concerned, being enjoined, to, ensure the, affording, of, a reasonable opportunity, to the contesting litigants, to, state their case, and also his being empowered, to, ensure recording of the evidence, of, the contesting litigants, and, (ii) further there onwards, with, a, specific provision, being also cast qua, vis-a-vis, the, ground of adjournments, and, vis-a-vis, upon, dismissal of application for default, thereupon, for sufficient reasons, the, learned Rent Controller concerned, being enjoined, to mete compliance, with, apposite therewith, provisions, as, cast in the CPC, 5. In aftermath, with, the afore explicit empowerments hence, appertaining, to, only, the, afore mandates, of, the CPC, being available, for, re-coursing, rather, by the Rent controller concerned, upon, his standing seized, with, a rent petition, (i) thereupon, with only the afore being explicitly enumerated therein, hence renders, the, afores, to, be the only ones, as, enumerated thereunder, and, the, unenumerated there within hence, the, mandates, of, the, strived hereat provisions, of, the CPC, are, deemed, to, be specifically excluded, and, nor, are recoursable hence by the learned Rent Controller concerned. Reiteratedly, since even Rule 12, of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Rules 1990, does not, empower, the learned Rent Controller, to, entertain, or, make an adjudication, upon, an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and, hence, the, impugned order, yet, does not warrant any interference, being made by this Court. 6. Be that as it may, rather all the afore forestallings, yet, cannot prejudice, the, tenant, to, canvass, the, afore lack, of, statutory enablement’s, vis-a-vis, the apt strivings, of, the respondent herein, as upon, cogent documentary evidence, standing adduced, vis-a-vis, the relevant issues, thereupon, the, learned Rent Controller, may be constrained, to, make inferences qua him. 7. 6. Be that as it may, rather all the afore forestallings, yet, cannot prejudice, the, tenant, to, canvass, the, afore lack, of, statutory enablement’s, vis-a-vis, the apt strivings, of, the respondent herein, as upon, cogent documentary evidence, standing adduced, vis-a-vis, the relevant issues, thereupon, the, learned Rent Controller, may be constrained, to, make inferences qua him. 7. Dehors the above, the further grounds, as, encapsulated, in the apt petition, qua, the, rent petition acquiring, the, taint, of, malafide(s), and, it being a colourable ground, is, also, not, a sufficient ground, to, conclude, that, either the rent petition, does not, at, an, incipient stage, hence disclose, any, valid accruable causes of action, or, it infracts the consonant therewith, provisions, cast in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, (i) conspicuously, given, this Court rendering, the, afore enablement’s, vis-a-vis, the petitioner herein. Concomitantly, also qua, the, secondary ground, though, the tenant, is, disabled to recourse, the, mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, yet the afore disablement, is, mitigated, upon, emergence, of, apt contentious issues, vis-a-vis, therewith, and, when thereafter, upon, his being permitted, to, adduce his evidence thereon(s), (ii) for, hence thereafter facilitating the learned Rent Controller concerned, to, return findings thereon, thereupon it would be premature, at, this stage, to, conclude that the afore ground, is, sufficient/merit worthy, to, make a conclusion, qua, the rent petition warranting dismissal, hence, at the incipient stage. 8. For the forgoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Any observation made herein above, shall not, be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned trial Court, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove.