The High Court clarified that withdrawal of a rent revision petition—where related pleas are also in the written statement—does not preclude the petitioners from pressing those pleas during trial. The Rent Controller must adjudicate such pleas independently of previous interlocutory orders. This order affirms established procedure in rent control matters; it is binding precedent within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/1121/2023 of YUVSATTA AND ANR Vs RAHUL |
| CNR | PHHC010171832023 |
| Date of Registration | 16-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms procedural entitlement of parties to raise all available pleas during trial, irrespective of withdrawal orders. |
| Type of Law | Rent Control / Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether withdrawal of a revision petition precludes petitioners from raising related pleas during trial. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that withdrawal of the revision petition—where petitioners sought dismissal of the rent petition based on certain pleas—does not prevent those pleas, if also reflected in the written statement or otherwise available, from being raised during the trial. The Rent Controller is directed to consider such pleas on their merits, uninfluenced by earlier interlocutory observations (specifically from order dated 07.01.2023). The clarification preserves procedural fairness and maintains the right of parties to a complete hearing of their contentions at trial. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged an order refusing dismissal of a rent petition. During the hearing, they sought to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all their pleas at trial. The respondent did not object. Court granted leave as requested. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Rent Controllers and subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | May be relied upon in other High Court jurisdictions where procedural points on withdrawal arise |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Expressly clarifies that withdrawal of a revision petition, with liberty sought and granted, does not bar petitioners from raising the same or other available pleas at the trial stage.
- Rent Controllers must adjudicate all such pleas independently, without being influenced by prior interlocutory observations.
- Consent of the respondent to such withdrawal and liberty contributes to procedural economy and clarity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that since the pleas in the revision petition were also part of the written statement, withdrawing the revision petition would not adversely affect the petitioners’ substantive rights.
- The counsel for the respondent had no objection to the withdrawal with liberty.
- The Court specifically directed that all such pleas be considered by the Rent Controller uninfluenced by observations in the previous order dated 07.01.2023.
- The approach preserves the procedural right of parties to raise all contentions available to them at the trial, ensuring a fair adjudication of the dispute.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- Sought permission to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all pleas raised in the written statement and otherwise available, at the time of trial.
- Requested that these pleas be considered by the Rent Controller independently of the order dated 07.01.2023.
Respondent:
- Stated no objection to the withdrawal of the revision petition and the liberty sought by the petitioners.
Factual Background
Petitioners had filed a revision petition challenging the Rent Controller’s order dated 07.01.2023, which dismissed their application for dismissal of the rent petition. During hearing of the revision petition, petitioners requested to withdraw the petition, seeking liberty to pursue all available pleas in the trial before the Rent Controller. The respondent raised no objection to this course of action.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment reinforces established procedural rights in rent control proceedings—specifically, the ability to raise all available contentions at the stage of trial. No specific interpretation of any statutory provision was undertaken beyond directing the Rent Controller to independently adjudicate all such pleas, regardless of previous interim orders.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are noted in the single-bench judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reaffirms that a party withdrawing a revision petition challenging an interlocutory order may be granted liberty to raise the same or other available pleas at the trial and that such withdrawal does not prejudice their substantive rights.
- Court directs subsequent adjudication to be free from influence of prior interlocutory observations, ensuring procedural purity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed and clarified existing procedure, ensuring continued procedural fairness for litigants in rent control proceedings.