Home  /  Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973  /  Section 22

Section 22: Protection of action taken in good faith

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

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1973
Section 21 All 24 Sections of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 Section 23

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22

Section 22 establishes penal sanctions for violations of the Act, prescribing fines for tax recovery, amenity interference, conversion, and particulars default, while prescribing imprisonment up to two years for demanding unlawful rent or pagri under Section 6.

  • Dual-Tiered Penal Architecture: Imposes fines up to Rs. 1,000 for contravention of Section 8(2) (unlawful tax recovery), Section 10(1) (amenity interference), Section 11 (unauthorized conversion), and Section 21 (failure to furnish particulars), while imposing imprisonment up to two years, fine, or both for Section 6(a) pagri and excess rent violations.
  • Strict Criminal Cognizance Gateway: Mandates under Section 22(3) that no criminal court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except upon a written complaint made by or under the authorization of the Rent Controller.
  • Public Law Enforcement of Rent Ceilings: Reinforces statutory rent ceilings and tenant protections by transforming rent exploitation and unauthorized conversion into criminal offences against the state.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Ltd., (1977) 4 SCC 98: Affirmed the legislative competence to attach penal consequences, including imprisonment and fines, to enforce economic regulations and prevent the illegal exaction of statutory ceilings.
  • Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 389 (P&H): Held that under Section 22(3), a criminal court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence on a private police FIR or direct complaint by a tenant; a written complaint by or under the authorization of the Rent Controller is an absolute condition precedent.
  • Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, 1997 (1) RCR (Rent) 521 (P&H): Held that charging pugree or extracting rent in excess of fair rent under Section 6(a) is a serious cognizable offence under Section 22(2) requiring the Rent Controller to make an inquiry and file a formal written complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When prosecuting a landlord for extracting pagri or cutting off basic amenities, do not file an ordinary private complaint or police FIR under general criminal law, as it will be quashed for want of jurisdiction under Section 22(3). File an application before the Rent Controller establishing the contravention with documentary evidence, praying for an inquiry and a formal written complaint to be transmitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Section 21 All 24 Sections of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 Section 23