Home  /  Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973  /  Section 1

Section 1: Short title, extent and commencement

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1973
All 24 Sections of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 Section 2

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 1

Section 1 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 governs the short title, territorial extent across all urban areas within the State of Haryana, and the critical ten-year statutory exemption holiday under Section 1(3) for newly constructed buildings.

  • Territorial Demarcation and Urban Scope: Confines the operational reach of the statute strictly to designated urban areas within the State of Haryana as defined under Section 2(i), creating an absolute jurisdictional boundary that excludes agricultural holdings, rural lands, and non-urban habitations from the purview of the Rent Controller.
  • Ten-Year Construction Exemption Holiday under Section 1(3): Enacts a blanket statutory immunity providing that nothing in the Act shall apply to any building the construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of the Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion, enacted as an economic incentive to encourage private capital investment in urban real estate.
  • Crystallization of Jurisdiction and Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit: Governs the jurisdictional interface between Civil Courts and Rent Controllers where an ejectment suit is filed during the ten-year exemption window, ensuring that subsequent expiry of the holiday during court proceedings does not divest the Civil Court of authority to decree eviction.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, (1988) 4 SCC 284: Held that where a landlord institutes a civil suit for eviction within the ten-year exemption period provided under Section 1(3), the rights of the parties crystallize on the date of institution of the suit; the subsequent expiry of the ten-year period during the pendency of the litigation does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass an executable ejectment decree, applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit.
  • Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 221: Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 1(3) granting a ten-year holiday to newly constructed buildings, ruling that it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as it is founded on an intelligible differentia with a direct nexus to the legislative object of encouraging new residential and commercial construction.
  • Punjab Tin Factory v. State of Punjab, (1984) 1 SCC 500: Reaffirmed the legislative rationale for exempting newly constructed buildings from statutory rent restriction regimes to stimulate construction activity, holding that tenants inducted into newly constructed premises cannot claim statutory tenancy protections during the exemption window.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When instituting ejectment proceedings for premises constructed within the past decade, file a regular civil suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 rather than a petition before the Rent Controller. Plead and place on record municipal sanctioned building plans, the completion certificate, or the first municipal property tax assessment to conclusively establish the date of completion within the ten-year threshold.

All 24 Sections of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 Section 2