Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Applicability of CPC Principles in Rent Controller Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the applicability of certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in proceedings conducted by Rent Controllers under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The judgment came in response to a civil revision petition challenging the decision of the Rent Controller to decline an application under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the CPC.

The petitioner, Umesh Gupta, had filed the revision petition against an order dated November 1, 2019, passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Petition No.32-Rent of 2018 titled “Monika Singal vs. Umesh Gupta.” The impugned order had declined the application filed by the respondent, Monika Singal, under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC.

In its observation, the High Court highlighted the essence of the case, stating, “The issue revolves around the applicability of CPC provisions in Rent Controller proceedings. The petitioner raised objections and filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC, which was declined by the Rent Controller.”

The court referred to the relevant provisions including Section 16 and Section 18 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, along with Rule 7 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1976, and Section 23 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The judgment emphasized that while not all provisions of the CPC are applicable to Rent Controller proceedings, certain principles of CPC procedure are to be followed.

“The Rent Controller’s procedure is guided by CPC principles, but not all CPC provisions are applicable. Strict applicability of the CPC provisions is required for summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses, and for execution of orders,” the High Court noted in its decision.

The court cited the precedent set by the case of “Krishan Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal (since deceased) through his LRs,” 2016(1) Rent LR 106, to establish the principle that only specific provisions of CPC that the Act provides for are applicable to the proceedings under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.

Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Rent Controller’s decision to decline the application under Order 18 Rule 3-A of the CPC. The civil revision filed by Umesh Gupta was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 07.08.2023

Umesh Gupta vs Monika Singal        

Latest Legal News