Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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