P&H: Dismisses Revision in rent dispute, says possession issue must be decided in Statutory remedy of appeal not in revision petition

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 21 Sep 2026
Headnotes

(i) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 — Rent & Eviction — Existence of landlord-tenant relationship and possession — Statutory remedy is founded upon existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and, in context of relief of eviction, possession of demised premises by...

(ii) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 — Rent & Eviction — Landlord specifically pleaded that petitioner continued to be in possession, whereas petitioner specifically pleaded that it had vacated premises — Whether petitioner actually surrendered possession was a disputed question of fact...

(iii) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 — Rent & Eviction — Jurisdiction — Distinction between jurisdiction to entertain proceedings and ultimate entitlement of landlord to an order of eviction — Landlord approached Rent Controller asserting that petitioner was his tenant and continued...

(iv) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13, 15(5) — Rent & Eviction — Revision against interlocutory order of provisional rent — Availability of statutory appellate remedy — Present revision petition against order is not required to be entertained as substitute for statutory appeal...


Facts of the Case

P&H: Dismisses Revision in rent dispute, says possession issue must be decided in Statutory remedy of appeal not in revision petition

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, in a rent dispute concerning SCO Nos. 71-72-73, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The department had challenged an order of the Rent Controller that provisionally assessed rent at ₹2.47 crore, including arrears, interest and costs.

The landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging non-payment of rent from 1 July 2019. The department, however, claimed that it had already vacated the premises on 30 September 2019 after shifting to its...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File