https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152798 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. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152798 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152798