When aspirants speak loosely of the “Haryana urban rent control rules” they are usually conflating two instruments: the parent statute, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and the subordinate legislation framed under it, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976. The Act creates the substantive rights—fair rent, protection from eviction, deposit of rent—while the 1976 Rules supply the procedural skeleton: how an application is drafted, what particulars accompany it, how notices are served, how rent is deposited with the Controller, and how appeals are taken. This note maps the Rules onto their parent sections so the scheme reads as a single working machine rather than two disconnected texts.
The Rules and their parent Act
The 1976 Rules are delegated legislation. Their validity is entirely derivative: they are framed under Section 24 of the 1973 Act, which empowers the State Government, by notification, to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. A rule that travels beyond what the Act authorises is ultra vires and unenforceable; conversely, where the Act is silent on mechanics, the Rules legitimately fill the gap. This is why every operative rule is expressly tagged to a parent section—Rule 3 to Section 4 (fair rent), Rule 4 to Section 13 (eviction), Rule 6 to Section 12 (repairs), and so on. For the substantive framework that the Rules service, see the introduction and the definitions notes, and the hub at Haryana Urban Rent & Eviction Act notes.
A point of history worth fixing: the 1973 Act repealed the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in its application to Haryana's urban areas, subject to a savings clause preserving pending proceedings. The two statutes are closely cognate and in pari materia, so precedent on the East Punjab Act is persuasive—but it is not the governing law for buildings in Haryana today.
Application to fix fair rent: Rule 3 read with Section 4
The right to have fair rent fixed is conferred by Section 4 of the Act; Rule 3 tells the parties how to invoke it. Either landlord or tenant may apply to the Controller for determination of fair rent. The Controller first ascertains the basic rent—broadly, the rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings or rented land—and may then allow an increase or decrease on that basic rent not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the rise or fall in the general level of prices, measured by the average of the All India Wholesale Price Index Numbers for the calendar year preceding the application. The statutory cap is the examiner's favourite figure: any computation exceeding 25% of the index movement is bad in law.
Rule 3 requires the application to be in writing and to carry the particulars needed for the Controller to perform this calculation—description of the premises, date of construction, the agreed or last-paid rent, and the basis on which fair rent is claimed. For the detailed substantive treatment of how the figure is built, see fair rent determination.
Stability of fixed rent and permitted revision: Section 5
Once fair rent is fixed, the Act builds in stability. Under Section 5, neither landlord nor tenant may seek a fresh increase or decrease for five years from the date of fixation, save in defined situations—an increase where the landlord has made additions or improvements at his own expense, or a decrease where some amenity previously enjoyed has been withdrawn or reduced. Section 6 reinforces this by prohibiting the landlord from claiming or receiving any premium or rent in excess of the fair rent, with the narrow exception of an advance not exceeding one month's rent; any agreement to the contrary is void. The Rules provide no machinery to defeat these caps—being subordinate, they cannot enlarge a landlord's entitlement beyond what Sections 5 and 6 permit. The substantive contours of permitted revision are developed in increase in fair rent.
Deposit of rent: Rule 11 read with Section 6A
A tenant's most practical protection against a manufactured “non-payment” eviction is the right to deposit rent with the Controller. Section 6A permits a tenant to deposit rent with the Controller where the landlord refuses to accept it or refuses to grant a receipt, and such deposit is deemed payment to the landlord. Rule 11 operationalises this: the deposited sums are treated as Civil Court Deposits and dealt with accordingly, so the money is held in a recognised account from which the landlord can withdraw. The deposit mechanism matters because the first ground of eviction under Section 13 is non-payment, and a tenant who has validly deposited has, in substance, paid. Aspirants should remember that a deposit which does not comply with the statutory conditions (genuine refusal, correct amount) will not save the tenant—the protection is conditional, not automatic.
Eviction application: Rule 4 read with Section 13
A tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with Section 13; Rule 4 prescribes how the landlord moves the Controller. The application must set out the ground relied on and the supporting facts. The grounds divide into largely mandatory clauses—non-payment of rent (with a statutory opportunity to tender arrears with interest and costs on the first hearing), unauthorised sub-letting or transfer, change of user, acts materially impairing the value or utility of the building, and causing nuisance—and discretionary, satisfaction-based grounds, principally the landlord's bona fide requirement of a residential building for his own occupation, the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and reconstruction. The full taxonomy is set out in eviction of tenant: grounds.
On the non-payment ground the procedural safeguard is decisive: the tenant who, on the first date of hearing, tenders the arrears of rent together with interest and the cost of the application as assessed by the Controller, is entitled to have the ejectment application on that ground dismissed. Rule 4's insistence on a properly pleaded ground exists precisely so the tenant knows the case to be met and can exercise this cure.
Bona fide requirement: pleading and proof
The discretionary ground that generates the most litigation is the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. The Controller must be satisfied that the need is genuine and that the landlord does not already occupy, in the urban area concerned, another suitable building of his own. Because the cognate East Punjab Act is in pari materia, Supreme Court authority on its requirement-of-need clause is routinely relied upon. In Gulraj Singh Grewal v. Dr. Harbans Singh (1993) the Court, dealing with eviction sought for the benefit of the landlord's son, held that where the bona fide need is otherwise established on the evidence, the mere non-examination of the family member for whose benefit possession is sought is not by itself fatal to the petition. The principle aspirants should extract is that bona fide need is assessed on the totality of the evidence, not defeated by a single evidentiary gap, while the tenant retains the right to rebut the landlord's claim with cogent material—particularly as to the availability of alternative accommodation with the landlord.
Particulars and pleadings: Rules 5 and 6
Rule 5 governs applications generally—both for fair rent under Section 4 and for eviction under Section 13. It requires the application to contain a simple and concise narrative of the material facts, and to be accompanied by certified copies sufficient for service on the opposite party. This is the Rules' answer to the perennial pleading problem: the respondent must receive a copy that fairly discloses the case. Rule 6 ties to Section 12 (the landlord's duty to carry out necessary repairs) and prescribes the particulars a tenant must furnish to the Controller when invoking that section—so that, where a landlord defaults on repairs, the Controller can direct the work or permit the tenant to carry it out and adjust the cost against rent. Read together, Rules 5 and 6 ensure that proceedings begin on properly framed pleadings rather than vague assertions.
Procedure before the Controller: Rules 7 and 8
Rules 7 and 8 supply the conduct of proceedings. Rule 7 prescribes the procedure the Controller is to adopt—he is not strictly bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure but follows a summary, fair-hearing process consistent with the Act's object of speedy resolution. Rule 8 empowers inspection of the premises, which is often decisive in disputes over the condition of a building (whether it is unsafe, whether value has been impaired, whether repairs are needed). The Controller's findings on inspection carry significant evidentiary weight because they rest on direct observation of the subject-matter. The procedural particulars that landlord and tenant must place before the Controller flow from Section 21, under which both are obliged to furnish particulars relating to the building or rented land.
Appeal and revision: Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 15
The corrective hierarchy is set by Section 15 and serviced by Rules 9 and 10. An aggrieved party may appeal the Controller's order to the appellate authority within the prescribed period (ordinarily fifteen days under the scheme), and Rule 9 governs the form and accompaniments of that appeal. Rule 10 deals with revision. The appellate authority's order is subject to revision, the revisional power being confined to questions of the legality or propriety of the order or of the regularity of the proceedings—it is not a second appeal on the merits. For aspirants, the examinable distinction is between the appellate authority, which can re-appraise findings of fact, and the revisional jurisdiction, which polices legality and propriety rather than re-weighing evidence.
Registers and records: Rule 12
Rule 12 requires the Controller and the appellate authority to maintain prescribed registers of the proceedings before them. This is more than housekeeping: a maintained register of fair-rent fixations and eviction orders is what allows the Section 5 five-year embargo to be policed, what evidences earlier deposits under Section 6A, and what prevents a landlord from re-agitating a settled fair-rent figure prematurely. The record-keeping rules thus quietly underwrite the substantive caps in the Act by creating the institutional memory those caps depend on.
Repeal, savings and territorial scope
Rule 13 contains the repeal-and-savings provision of the 1976 Rules, mirroring the savings architecture in Section 24 of the Act, under which the repeal of the East Punjab Act, 1949 did not disturb proceedings pending or orders passed before the 1973 Act commenced. Territorially, the Act and therefore the Rules apply only to urban areas as defined and notified—areas under municipal or notified-area committees, or otherwise declared by the State Government—and not to cantonments. A building outside a notified urban area falls outside the rent-control net entirely, which is why the threshold question in any dispute is whether the premises lie within a notified area. That gateway is examined in application to notified urban areas.
Exam takeaways
Three propositions repay memorisation. First, the Rules are subordinate to and cannot enlarge the Act—every rule is anchored to a parent section (Rule 3/Section 4, Rule 4/Section 13, Rule 11/Section 6A, Rules 9-10/Section 15) and the rule-making power itself sits in Section 24. Second, the substantive caps are statutory, not procedural: fair rent is basic rent adjusted by up to 25% of WPI movement (Section 4), frozen for five years (Section 5), with no premium beyond fair rent permitted (Section 6). Third, procedure protects the tenant in two concrete ways—the Section 6A/Rule 11 deposit defeats a non-payment eviction, and the first-hearing tender of arrears with interest and costs cures default under Section 13. Knowing which protection is substantive and which is procedural is the difference between a confident answer and a vague one.
Frequently asked questions
Are the Haryana urban rent control rules the same as the 1973 Act?
No. The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is the parent statute that creates substantive rights; the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976 are subordinate legislation framed under Section 24 of the Act that supply the procedure—application forms, particulars, service, deposit and appeals.
Under which section are the 1976 Rules made?
Under Section 24 of the 1973 Act, which empowers the State Government by notification to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. A rule that exceeds this authority is ultra vires and unenforceable.
How is fair rent calculated under Section 4 and Rule 3?
The Controller fixes a basic rent (rent prevailing in the locality for similar premises) and may allow an increase or decrease on it not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the rise or fall in the general price level, measured by the average All India Wholesale Price Index Numbers for the calendar year preceding the application. Rule 3 prescribes how the application is made.
Can a tenant avoid eviction for non-payment of rent?
Yes. Two protections operate. Under Section 6A read with Rule 11 a tenant may deposit rent with the Controller (treated as a Civil Court Deposit) where the landlord refuses it, which counts as payment. And on the first date of hearing the tenant may tender the arrears with interest and assessed costs, entitling him to dismissal of the ejectment application on that ground.
Does precedent on the East Punjab Act apply in Haryana?
Only as persuasive authority. The 1973 Act repealed the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for Haryana's urban areas, with savings for pending matters. The statutes are in pari materia, so decisions such as Gulraj Singh Grewal v. Dr. Harbans Singh (1993) are commonly relied upon on bona fide need, but the 1973 Act is the governing law.
What is the difference between appeal and revision under Section 15?
The appellate authority (Rule 9) can re-appraise findings of fact and law. The revisional jurisdiction (Rule 10) is narrower—it is confined to examining the legality or propriety of the order and the regularity of the proceedings, and does not re-weigh the evidence on merits.