Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973

23 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

A.K. JAINversusPREM KUMAR

2008 INSC 87228 July 2008Case Allowed

A.K. Jain, a landlord, filed an eviction suit against tenant Prem Kumar under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming personal necessity for himself, his wife, son, daughter and later, his son’s wife, grandchildren and his own retirement. The Rent Controller dismissed

BAL KISHANversusOM PRAKASH & ANR.

1986 INSC 17726 August 1986Dismissed

The landlord Om Prakash leased a commercial premises to Musadi Lal, who later sub‑let it to Med Ram without the landlord's written consent. The landlord filed an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, invoking s.13(2)(ii)(a). After Musadi Lal's death, his heir Bal Kishan was

ISHWAR SWAROOP SHARMAversusJAGMOHAN LAL

2000 INSC 54124 November 2000Dismissed

The landlord, Ishwar Swaroop Sharma, let a shop to Jagmohan Lal on a monthly basis, with the rent increased to Rs 200 in 1976 and documented by an endorsement. In 1989 Sharma applied under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed Rs 1,0

RAM DASSversusDAVINDER

2004 INSC 20724 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Ram Dass, filed an eviction suit against his tenant, Davinder, under Section 13(2)(v) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, alleging the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop for four months without reasonable cause. The Rent Controller decreed in favour of the landlord, a decision

MOHINDER PRASAD JAINversusMANOHAR LAL JAIN

2006 INSC 10924 February 2006Dismissed

Manohar Lal Jain, a co-owner of a shop, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming a bona fide personal requirement to run a wholesale Ayurvedic medicine business. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for lack of proof of such requirement an

M/S. JYOTI PRASHAD VINOD KUMAR AND ANR.versusYASH PAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 93523 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The tenants appealed against an eviction order issued by the appellate authority and affirmed by the High Court, which was based on the alleged non‑payment of increased rent that included a newly levied house tax. Under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, a landlord may shift the

FIRM GANPAT RAM RAJKUMARversusKALU RAM & ORS.

1989 INSC 28822 September 1989Disposed off

The firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar was ordered by the Supreme Court to vacate a shop in Narnaul within six months, on the condition that it filed a "usual undertaking" confirming possession and delivery of vacant possession. The firm failed to file any undertaking and did not vacate the premises. The partners' sons subsequen

ATMA RAM MITTALversusISHWAR SINGH PUNIA

1988 INSC 23422 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Atma Ram Mittal, filed a suit for possession of a shop he let to Ishwar Singh Punja, relying on Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, which exempts buildings completed after the Act’s commencement for ten years. The building was completed in June 1974, so the exemptio

NEERAJ KUMAR SAINY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2017 INSC 23921 March 2017Dismissed

The appellants, who cleared the Uttar Pradesh Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination but were not allotted seats in the first round of counselling, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to conduct second, third and mop‑up rounds of counselling as prescribed in the information brochure. The Hi

RAMA KANT AND ORS.versusSONA DEVI

2002 INSC 9521 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Brothers Rama Kant and others were tenants of a shop owned by Sona Devi. The landlord filed an eviction petition for non‑payment of rent for the period October‑December 1995. The son of one tenant paid the arrears and the landlord accepted the payment without prejudice. The Rent Controller held that the payment constit

VINOD KUMARversusPREM LATA

2003 INSC 40219 August 2003Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for non‑payment of rent. The High Court ordered eviction, but the Supreme Court, on special leave, set aside that order and remitted the matter to the Rent Controller to apply the law laid dow

RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS.versusBHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2016 INSC 97218 October 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords filed a civil suit for eviction of tenants occupying a shop in a rural area of Haryana, which at the time of filing was not covered by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. While the suit was pending, a municipal notification brought the area within the urban sweep, thereby subjectin

MOHINDER KUMAR ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

1985 INSC 19718 September 1985Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, as amended in 1978, which exempts buildings whose construction was completed on or after the Act’s commencement from its provisions for ten years. They argued that the provision creates

ASHOK KUMARversusVED PRAKASH & ORS.

2009 INSC 132017 December 2009Dismissed

The landlord, Om Prakash, let a shop to the tenant Ashok Kumar in 1982 and later sought eviction on the ground of a bona‑fide requirement for his son. The Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the Punjab‑Haryana High Court ordered eviction of the tenant from the non‑residential premises under Section 13 of the H

RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL & ORSversusMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ORS.

2021 INSC 40517 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land originally leased to Louis Club for club purposes, on which a pavilion was constructed and later sub‑let to another club and partially transferred to a Municipal Committee. The landlord filed an ejectment petition alleging non‑payment of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and change of use. The High

SURINDER PAL KAUR AND ANOTHERversusSATPAL AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 95113 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, claiming to be landlords, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the respondents who asserted they were tenants of a temple. The respondents pointed to earlier proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wher

LACHHMAN DASversusSANTOKH SINGH

1995 INSC 37712 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Lachhman Das, a landlord, filed an eviction suit against tenant Santokh Singh under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, alleging arrears of rent, tethering cattle, and abandonment of the premises. The Rent Controller found the landlord entitled to evict, noting the tenant had paid arrears, there

YUDHISHTERversusASHOK KUMAR

1986 INSC 26511 December 1986Dismissed

The appellant, Yudhishter, had been in possession of a residential premises since 1962. The respondent landlord, Ashok Kumar, purchased the premises in 1971 and later filed an eviction petition in 1974 under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for his own occupat

RUBBER HOUSEversusEXCELLSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

1989 INSC 8610 March 1989Dismissed

The landlord, Excelsior Needle Industries, filed an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 alleging non‑payment of rent by the tenant, Rubber House. The tenant contended that the rent increase was unlawful, that he had already paid rent up to March 1975 and had tendered arrea

BRIJ BHUSHANversusKEWAL KUMAR

1998 INSC 2885 August 1998Dismissed

The tenant, Brij Bhushan, applied to the Rent Controller under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, to deposit rent because the landlord, Kewal Kumar, refused to accept rent and give a receipt. The tenant deposited Rs. 7,500 covering rent from 12‑Feb‑1987 to 11‑May‑1988. The landlor

UMED SINGHversusARYA SAMAJ SEWA SADAN

2006 INSC 3904 July 2006Dismissed

Umed Singh was a monthly tenant of a residential building that later became the property of Arya Samaj Sewa Sadan, a society, by will. The society filed an ejectment suit under s.13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, alleging non‑payment of rent and a bona‑fide need to run a public

VANEET JAINversusJAGJIT SINGH

2000 INSC 2772 May 2000Disposed off

The landlord applied to the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of a bona‑fide need to start a Karyana business, despite being unemployed and suffering from asthma. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority fo

KESHO RAM & CO. & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1989 INSC 1672 May 1989Dismissed

The petitioners, tenants of newly constructed buildings in Chandigarh, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and a 1974 notification that exempted such buildings from Section 13 for five years. They argued that the exemption was indefinitive, discriminat

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search