Rent control procedure and revisional powers under Haryana law must be read purposively, with remand where statutory bar facts remain unresolved.

The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules is directory, so an eviction petition is not invalid merely because it omits material particulars initially if the tenant later receives full notice and an opportunity to meet the case. It also explained that revisional power under Section 15 of the Act extends beyond the narrow limits of CPC revision and may reach unsupported or unsustainable factual findings. On the proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b), the Court adopted a purposive reading, treating it as a substantive restriction on eviction rights; however, its application depended on unresolved facts about the nature of earlier premises, requiring evidence and remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules is mandatory so as to invalidate an eviction petition that does not contain all material particulars at the outset; (ii) whether the High Court, in revision under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, could interfere with factual findings of the Appellate Authority; (iii) whether the proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 bars eviction where the landlord has already obtained possession of other rented premises and whether the matter required remand for evidence on the nature of those premises.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules is mandatory so as to invalidate an eviction petition that does not contain all material particulars at the outset.

Analysis: The eviction petition did not contain every detail of the landlord's need in the first instance, but the rejoinder supplied the particulars, the tenant had notice of the case, an issue was framed, and evidence was led on the point. The rule was treated as one intended to guide pleadings rather than to create an inflexible bar. A defect in initial particulars, when cured by subsequent pleadings and full opportunity to meet the case, did not cause prejudice.

Conclusion: Rule 4 was held to be directory, not mandatory, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in revision under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, could interfere with factual findings of the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 15(6) was described as wider than the limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court may examine legality or propriety and, where the finding of fact is unsupported by evidence or otherwise unsustainable, it may interfere even with factual conclusions. On the record, no jurisdictional excess was shown in the High Court's interference.

Conclusion: The High Court was held competent to interfere with the factual finding in revision, and this contention failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 bars eviction where the landlord has already obtained possession of other rented premises and whether the matter required remand for evidence on the nature of those premises.

Analysis: The proviso was interpreted as restricting the landlord's substantive right to obtain eviction, not merely the filing of the petition. A literal construction confining the bar only to the stage of filing would defeat the object of the provision and permit the mischief the Legislature intended to prevent. The earlier view that the proviso did not apply where the landlord had evicted other tenants from parts of the same premises was rejected. At the same time, the application of the proviso depended on facts showing that the premises earlier obtained belonged to the same class as the tenanted premises in question. Since no issue had been framed and no evidence had been led on that factual aspect, a final determination on the bar could not safely be made in appeal.

Conclusion: The proviso was held applicable in principle, but the factual question required evidence and remand.

Final Conclusion: The legal objections to the eviction claim were rejected in part, but the matter was sent back for limited fact-finding on the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 13(3)(i)(b), so the eviction dispute remained open for fresh decision on that issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso restricting a landlord's right to evict must be construed purposively so as to prevent the right from being defeated by procedural timing, and where the applicability of such a bar depends on unresolved factual questions, the proper course is to permit evidence and decide the matter on a framed issue.

---