Fixed-Term Lease Doesn’t Oust Rent Controller's Jurisdiction at Threshold – Contractual Terms Cannot Defeat Statutory Eviction Proceedings Without Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Relationship of Landlord and Tenant is a Matter of Evidence – Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Not Permissible Merely on Basis of Lease Tenure", In a significant reaffirmation of procedural and jurisdictional principles governing rent control litigation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a registered lease deed stipulating a fixed-term tenancy does not, by itself, bar eviction proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, unless such jurisdictional objections are tried and established through evidence.

Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioners had sought ouster of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction on the basis of a 30-year registered lease deed, but the High Court held that such a defence raises mixed questions of law and fact, not determinable at the threshold stage.

“Averments in the Petition Alone Determine Applicability of Order VII Rule 11 – Lease Terms Are Matters of Defence and Evidence”

The core dispute arose from an eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the petitioners on three grounds: (a) non-payment of rent, (b) ceasing to occupy the premises, and (c) personal necessity for constructing an old age home. In response, the tenants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, claiming the lease deed dated 16.06.2011 granted a contractual tenancy for 30 years, extendable at the lessee's discretion, and thus, eviction was impermissible during the lease period.

Rejecting this contention, Justice Gupta held:

“It is established position in law that in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint can be seen… No evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of deciding rejection of a plaint.”

The Court relied on a catena of judgments including Kamla v. K.T. Eshwara Sa (2008) 12 SCC 661, Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, and Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Vidyarthi, all of which reiterate that defences raised by the respondent, including contractual documents, are irrelevant at the stage of adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

“Existence of Lease Deed Does Not Automatically Convert Relationship – Tenant’s Own Denial of Tenancy Requires Evidence”

A key turning point in the case was the petitioners' own denial of the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting instead that the relationship was that of lessor and lessee under a commercial lease. The High Court observed that such denial and alternate assertion creates a triable issue, which must be resolved on the basis of evidence during trial.

“Whether there exists a lessor-lessee relationship or that of landlord and tenant is a matter of evidence. Petitioners can derive no benefit from the relied-upon judgment in Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar, as the present case involves a disputed relationship,” the Court noted.

The Court further held that Rent Controller's jurisdiction cannot be ousted solely on the existence of a registered lease deed, especially when the petitioners themselves contest the foundational legal relationship and where the eviction grounds include arrears of rent and personal necessity, both of which are recognized under the Rent Act.

"Forfeiture Clause in Lease Raises Questions for Trial – Not a Ground to Reject Petition at Outset"

On the question of whether the lease contained a forfeiture clause, the petitioners argued that no clause empowered eviction before expiry of the lease term. However, the Court pointed to Clause 9.2 of the lease deed, which clearly stipulates:

“If any amount payable by the lessee remains unpaid for three months, and lessee fails to pay within thirty days of notice, the lessor shall have the power to determine the lease forthwith by giving one month’s notice and re-enter the premises.”

Thus, the Court held that whether the lease has been validly determined or whether rent is due under the said clause are matters that require evidence, and cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

"Rent Act Protection Not Automatically Defeated by Contractual Clauses – Mixed Questions of Law and Fact Require Trial"

Reiterating a consistent position of law, the High Court emphasized that even if the lease appears to be a fixed-term contractual arrangement, the statutory protections under the Rent Act cannot be ousted without trial. It is only upon determining the true nature of the relationship, the applicability of lease clauses, and the grounds under the Act, that the Court can rule on jurisdiction.

“Terms and conditions of a lease deed have no overriding effect over the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Whether the Court has jurisdiction or whether the petition is barred is a matter to be tried,” the Rent Controller had rightly held, which the High Court affirmed in totality.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Does Not Extend to Interfering with Well-Reasoned Interlocutory Orders

Justice Gupta also clarified the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, particularly in interlocutory orders, such as rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application. Unless there is palpable perversity or jurisdictional error, such supervisory jurisdiction is not to be exercised.

“I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.09.2025… The Rent Controller has correctly applied the law and rightly declined to reject the petition at threshold,” she concluded.

Registered Lease No Bar to Eviction Without Trial – Threshold Rejection Not Permitted Where Relationship and Grounds Are Disputed

The judgment lays down a crucial precedent for landlords and tenants entangled in fixed-term lease disputes, especially under the protective umbrella of urban rent control legislation. The Court has clarified that jurisdictional objections and contractual defences must pass through the rigour of trial and evidence, and cannot be invoked as a shortcut to defeat eviction petitions at the inception.

By emphasizing the primacy of statutory protection, the ruling ensures that tenants cannot rely solely on lease terms to oust Rent Controller jurisdiction without subjecting their defence to judicial scrutiny.

Date of Decision: December 23, 2025