Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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