FACULTY OF LAW, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA,

NEW DELHI
LAND LAWS ASSIGNMENT
TOPIC: SECTION 16 (1)(a) to (l) read with SECTION 15

SUBMITTED TO:

KEHKASHAN DANYAL MA’AM

PROFESSOR (FACULTY OF LAW)

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI

SUBMITTED BY:

ANAM IQBAL

ROLL NUMBER: 7

5TH YEAR BALLB (HONS) REGULAR

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI

1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude to Kehkashan Danyal Ma’am for
providing me his invaluable support, encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions
throughout this project work. His moral support and continuous guidance enabled me to
complete my work successfully. His intellectual thrust and blessings motivated me to work
rigorously on this study. In fact this study could not have seen the light of the day if his
contribution had not been available. It would be no exaggeration to say that it is his unflinching
faith and unquestioning support that has provided the sustenance necessary to see it through to its
present shape.

2
INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of introducing the Rent Control Act, 1948 in India was to protect the rights of
tenants, give them security and restrict the landlords in their ability to evict their tenants on their
whims and fancies. This Act has been designed for each and every state in India separately. Rent
control legislations are prime example of social legislation. They try to strike a just balance
between the rights of the landlords and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent
the landlords from taking the extreme steps of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or
skilful grounds. These legislations are enacted to prevent the vulnerable class called the ‘tenants’
from the clutches of the landlords, who often to thrive on the predicament of the tenants arising
due to the scarcity of the premises. Due to the scarcity, the landlords often exploit the tenants.
Therefore, each state has its own separate legislation regulating the rent and protecting the rights
of the tenant. Delhi has also got its own piece of statute the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The Delhi Rent Control Bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and received the
assent of the President on 31st December, 1958. It came into force on 9th February, 1959 as The
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It extends to the areas included within the limits of the New Delhi
Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such urban areas within the limits
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The courts are under a legal compulsion to harmoniously
read the provisions of the Act so as to balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the
tenant and landlord toward each other.1

The main purpose of enacting Rent control act is to:

 Protect the tenant from having to pay more than a standard rent.
 Protect the tenant from arbitrary eviction.

The statute is specifically oriented towards the rights of tenants. The rent control legislations are
intended to preserve the social environment and are purposed to promote social justice, but at the
same time, some safeguards should also be given to the landlords as well. In the case of E.
Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and Ors 2 it was held that the provisions of the rent
1
https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/analysis-of-delhi-rent-control-act-by-harleen-kaur/ accessed 31st October 2020.
2
2003 (1) SCC 123

3
control legislations are not to be interpreted with a hyper-technical approach, which indirectly
causes frustration of the mischief. Though the rent control legislations normally intend to benefit
the tenant, but still, the tenant also has a duty to strictly comply with the statutory provisions of
the concerned rent control legislations; if a tenant does not comply with the statutory provisions
strictly, then, the tenant should not be allowed to avail/reap the benefit available to him albeit the
concerned rent control legislation; hence, equitable considerations have no place in such matters.
As, discussed above that the tenant is kept on a higher pedestal in Delhi Rent Control Act. The
landlord cannot evict any tenant without any valid reason. The circumstances under which a
tenant can be evicted are mentioned under section 14 of the statute, but in those cases also the
landlord has to make an application to the Controller for the recovery of the possessions. The
statute under section 15 lays down the circumstances in which the tenant can get benefit from
protection against eviction. In this paper two things will be dealt the first one being the
circumstances in which a tenant can be evicted and secondly what are the protections available in
cases of eviction to the tenant.

4
Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides for various grounds available to a
landlord for evicting a tenant. We will specifically deal with section 14(1) (a) to l read with
section 15.

SECTION 14 (1) (a)  

Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be read in isolation, it has to be
read along with Section 14(2) and Section 15 of the 1958 Act. To give it a whole picture and
understand the condition in which a tenant can be evicted for the non-payment of rent. Section
14(2) and Section 15 of the 1958 Act give another opportunity to the tenant to deposit the rent
and in case he deposits the rent then, no eviction order is to be passed against the tenant. Proviso
to Section 14(2) provides that the benefit contemplated in Section 14(2) read with Section 15 can
only be enjoyed once.
This ground has undergone many changes in previous statutes. The same is not the case of state
acts. The burden of proof is on the landlord so, in order to evict the tenant on the ground of non-
payment of rent. It must be proved by the land lord that the tenant neither paid nor tendered the
amount before the tenant may be called upon to disprove the matter. In a situation where the
tenant pays the arrear of rent after the service of notice then no eviction petition can be initiated. 3
Section 2(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 defines the term ‘landlord’; this definition is
fairly comprehensive and is stated in the widest possible amplitude. It not only includes the
owner but also the person who collects the rent on behalf of the owner, and moreover this
definition includes the legal representatives of the owner of the premises, as has been held in the
case of Pukhraj Jain v. Padma Kashyap4. In the case of Imtiaz Ali v. Nasim Ahmed5, it was
held that even a person holding a general power of attorney, and thus, empowered to collect the
rent on behalf of the owner of the premises, will come within the ambit of the expression
‘landlord’. For the purpose of section 14(1)(a) to bring the eviction petition he may need not be
the land lord. The cause of action would only arise after the failure of the tenant that too after
two months have lapsed from the date of service of the notice. The law does not provide for with
any particular form of notice; it is just that it must come from a proper quarter, that is, either the

3
AIR 1996 SC 2951.
4
AIR 1990 SC 1133.
5
AIR 1987 Delhi 36.

5
landlord or his advocate. As far as service of notice is concerned it has to be read along with
Rule 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules which provides for service in person or through
Registered AD.

The essentials required under this provision in order to effect cause of action:6
 There should be a relationship between landlord and tenant.
 There should be existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the day of notice of
demand.
 Service of notice in the manner provided under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
 Failure of tenant to pay the rent within 2 months of the date of service of notice.

In the case of, Damadi Lal & Ors v. Parashram & Ors7, it was held that, if a cheque is sent to
the landlord, it is a valid tender. In the case of, Priya Bala Ghosh v. B.L. Singhania8, it was held
that rent can be tendered by money order, and in case if the money order is sent within time but it
reaches late to the landlord, then, it would be deemed as a valid tender.

SECTION 14(2) AND SECTION 15

As discussed that the provision 14(1) (a) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with
Section 14(2) and Section 15. It is equally important to understand these two provisions. Section
14(2) provides that no order for recovery of possession of tenanted premises can be made on the
ground that the tenant has committed default in the payment of rent, if he pays or deposits the
rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the 1958 Act. The benefit which the
tenant obtains under Section 14(2) is the avoidance of the decree of possession of the tenanted
premises, though the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. Thus, the right under
Section 14(2) accrues to the tenant by reason of the fact that he has complied with the order
passed by the Controller under Section 15 of the 1958 Act. The passing of an order under Section
15 of the 1958 Act is not really in the nature of a benefit which accrues to the tenant under
Section 14(2), for it is obligatory on the Controller to pass an order under Section 15(1) in every
proceeding for the recovery of possession on the ground specified under Section 14(1) (a), there
6
Daulat Ram v. Somnath AIR 1981 Del 354.
7
AIR 1976 SC 2229.
8
AIR 1992 SC 639.

6
by ordering the tenant to pay the rent to the landlord or deposit with the Controller, the arrears of
rent and so also the future rent.
It is through the medium of Section 15 that the tenant obtains the benefit under Section 14(2) of
the 1958 Act; and this benefit consists of the acquisition of immunity against the passing of an
order of eviction or recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, on the ground of default in
the payment of rent by the tenant. It must follow that it is only if an order for possession is not
passed against the tenant by reason of the provision contained in Section 14(2), then it can be
said that, the tenant has obtained a benefit under Section 14(2). Proviso to Section 14(2) can be
attracted only if it can be shown that the tenant had already obtained once, the benefit of the
provision contained in Section 14(2) read with Section 15 of the 1958 Act and not otherwise.

SECTION 14(1) (b)

This provision provides that a tenant may be evicted on the ground tenant without obtaining the
consent of the landlord in writing, the tenant has sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession
of the premises. Generally sub-letting is allowed, if the tenanted premises are sub-let with the
prior permission of the landlord, and such permission has been obtained in writing. Sub-tenant is
a tenant under a tenant.
Conditions of applicability of this section:
 The tenant has sublet and parted with the possession.
 It may be in relation to whole of property or part thereof.
 Such sub-letting has happened after 9th day of June, 1952.
 Such sub-letting has taken place without the permission of the landlord.

Section 14(1) (b) of the 1958 Act, lays down that, a tenant can be evicted out of the tenanted
premises if he sub-lets, assigns or parts with the possession of the tenanted premises. Generally
speaking, a decree of eviction on the ground of sub-letting is not applicable on the sub-tenant,
unless and until, the sub-tenant is made a party to the eviction proceedings and an order is
obtained directing the sub-tenant also to get evicted. To have an eviction order under Section
14(1) (b), what is required to be proved is that, there is presence of a third-person in the tenanted
premises; there is transfer of possession of the tenanted premises to the third person; and that

7
there is sub-letting of the tenanted premises without the prior written permission obtained
from the landlord. Section 14(1) (b) is to be read in conjunction with Section 14(3) and
Section 14(4).

In the case of Kapila Bhargava9 SC laid that the term tenant is to be understood for the
conferment of rights and obligation on a sub tenant the definition of tenant will also include a
subtenant. However it won’t apply in cases where the two are taken separately like in this
provision. Section 14(1)(b) specifically deals with inter se relationship between a tenant and a
subtenant, the two cannot be understood the same.
It was held in one of the case laws that the initial burden of proof is on the landlord to prove that
the subletting was done without the prior permission. Once this is proven the onus gets shifted to
tenant.10
In the case of Guruprasad v. ADM Jabalpur11it was held that the son who inherited tenancy
rights from his father can be evicted on the ground that his father had sublet the property or part
thereof without the prior permission of the landlord.
In the case of, Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam12, a three-judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, held as follows:

“If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains the use and control
over the tenancy premises with him, may be along with the partners, the tenant may not be said
to have parted with possession. However, if the user and control of the tenancy premises has
been parted with and deed of partnership has been drawn up as an indirect method of collecting
the consideration for creation of sub-tenancy or for providing a cloak or cover to conceal a
transaction not permitted by law, the Court is not estopped from tearing the veil of partnership
and finding out the real nature of transaction entered into between the tenant and the alleged
sub-tenant.”

SECTION 14 (1) (c)

9
2001(6) SCC 645.
10
Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, (1968) 1 S.C.W.R. 914.
11
1986(2) RCR 294 Bom.
12
2004 (4) SCC 794.

8
That the tenant has used the premises for purpose other than that for which they were let:

 If the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the
consent in writing of the landlord; or
 If the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent;

This ground provides that a landlord can evict the tenant if the premises are used for the purpose
otherwise which it was let out for, without the consent of land lord. Section 14(5) imposes
restriction on this particular ground. A notice of misuse of the property must be served by the
landlord within a specified period. It further imposes a restriction that no eviction order will be
made unless the controller is satisfied with the misuse of the premises. The misuse is of such a
nature that it is a public nuisance or causes damage to the premises or affects the interests of
landlord. These provisions are supposed to be read along with each other. The concept of
injury to the premises is the foundation of this clause. The change of user contemplates
prejudice to the interest of the landlord. The words used in section 14(5) “detrimental to the
interests of the landlord” connote that either the property interest or the reputation of the landlord
13
owning the house in the locality is jeopardized. The test for this provision is to look for the
purpose it was let out. A house is taken for residential purpose; it does not prevent the person
from carrying on his profession in the said premises during the spare time. Thus, where the
tenant and his family members were residing in the premises and were incidentally carrying on
tailoring work in the house, it was held that it did not amount to conversion of residential
premises into a non-residential one
In Rattan Lal v. Asha Rani14, the initial purpose for which premises were let on rent was to run a
grocery shop. The tenant instead of using it for grocery shop started running a bookshop therein.
The Supreme Court held that, this cannot afford a valid ground for ordering eviction.
SECTION 14 1(d)
This provision says that
“That the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his
family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the
filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof;”

13
Pushpa Devi v. Om Prakash Khera, SAO No. 219 of 1973.
14
JT 1988 (4) SC 83.

9
The premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family
has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of
the application for the recovery of possession thereof. This ground will give rise to an eviction
order. This ground stands alone and holds no restriction.

SECTION 14(1) (e)

This provision lay down:
“That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for
occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is
the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord
or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.”
In order to succeed in the petition under Section 14 (1) (e), the landlord has to establish the
below circumstances:-

1. Petitioner is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.

2. The petitioner requires the premises bona fide for herself or for any member of her
family dependent upon her.
3. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

This provision cannot be read in isolation, it has to be read with other sections like Section 14(6),
Section 14(7) and Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control, 1958. The most important ingredient
under this section is the word “bona-fide”. This word “bona-fide” is to be construed to mean in
“good-faith”; it means genuine, natural, real, pure, sincere and honest. The word “requirement”
is to be construed differently as per the requirements of different individuals according to their
standard of living.

SECTION 14(6)
This provision says that where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application
for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub-section (1), on the ground
specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years have elapsed from the
date of the acquisition. Section 14(6) is not made applicable to a person who lets out the

10
premises after he had already acquired them by transfer. This provision applies only when a
person becomes a landlord of the premises in question by virtue of the transfer itself.

SECTION 14(7)
An order for eviction passed under Section 14(1) (e) will not be executed within 6 (six) months
from the date of the said order. This provision has been incorporated for the benefit of the tenant
who has suffered an order of eviction. The section says that where an order for the recovery of
possession of any premises is made on the ground specified in clause(c) of the proviso to sub-
section (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of
a period of six months from the date of the order.

SECTION 19
This provision deals with recovery of possession for occupation and re-entry. This section
requires that the landlord, who recovers possession of the tenanted premises from a tenant on the
ground of bona-fide personal necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of the 1958 Act, not to re-let the
premises within the period on 3 years from the date of obtaining the possession of such premises
from the tenant, except with the permission of the Controller obtained in the prescribed manner.
Section 19(2) says that if the premises are not occupied by the landlord (or by the person for
whose benefit the eviction was effected) within 2 (two) months of obtaining such possession; or
the premises having so occupied are at any time within 3 (three) years from the date of obtaining
possession or re let to any other person other than the tenant without obtaining the permission of
the Controller under Section 19(1). If it appears to the controller that the transfer made was not
bona fide, the Controller is empowered, on an application made to him in this behalf by the
evicted tenant within the prescribed time, to direct the landlord to put the tenant back into the
possession of the premises or pay compensation to him.

Cases in respect of Bona fide need of landlord

In Freddy Fernandes v. P. L. Mehra15 the case-law on the meaning of the expression bona fide
as used in clause (e) was reviewed and it was held that the bona fides of the claim could be
subjective only insofar as the landlord has the right to choose between alternative
15
1973 R.C.R. 53(2).

11
accommodations according to his convenience. If one of them is more convenient to him than the
other, he is entitled to choose the one which is more convenient. But the extent of his need
cannot be left to his fancy. It has to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In that sense
the need has to be objectively judged.

In Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr 16 it was held that “Section 14(1) (e) of the
1958 Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because it discriminates between
the premises rented out for residential and non-residential purposes. But when the same are
required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family
dependent on him then it restricts the right of landlord and protects tenant in respect of
residential premises. This means that if the landlord has let out the property for commercial
purpose then he can not seek the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement
for his residential use because he himself gave the property for commercial use and  now the
premises are not of residential purpose alone.

The Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini17 held that whenever a landlord
seeks ejectment of a tenant for bona fide requirement, it shall be presumed to be genuine and
bona fide. Furthermore, the burden to rebut the said presumption lies on the tenant; however, the
mere assertion on part of the tenant does not suffice.

In the case of, Siddalingam v. Mamtha Shenoy18, it was held that the words “bona-fide
requirement” are to be construed neither too liberally nor too conservatively.

It is important to note that, under Section 14(1) (e), landlord means the “owner” of the premises
let on rent. In the case of, T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral19, it was held that, the tenant cannot decline
to vacate premises required bona-fide by the landlord for his residence merely because it is
possible for him (that is, the landlord) to live in some other town where he may have residential
accommodation available.
In the case of, Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan20, in this case relating to Section 14(1) (e), it was
held that a bona-fide desire of a landlord to live into his own house cannot be defeated merely on
the ground that his own landlord has not asked him to vacate. The landlord is the best judge of
16
2008 (5) SCC 287.
17
2005 12 SCC 778.
18
(2001) 8 SCC 561.
19
(1971) RCJ 322.
20
1996 (5) SCC 353.

12
his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts
to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a
residential standard of their own.

SECTION 14(1)(f) AND SECTION 14(1)(g)

Section 14(1) (f) & Section 14(1) (g) read with Section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and are required bona fide by
the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being
vacated. This is a valid ground for vacating under section 14(1) (f). The requirements numerated
under clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the 1958 Act are not mainly of the landlord but are rather of
the tenant or else is in the public interest. Section 14(1) (g) on the other hand lays down that the
premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose building or re-building or making
thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or
alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. An order of eviction in this
clause (g) is sought so that the landlord may be permitted or be allowed to develop his property
and make it more profitable.
As per clause (g) two requirements must be satisfied: firstly, the premises must be required bona-
fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or additions or alterations;
secondly, the court must be satisfied that the specified work cannot be carried out without the
premises being vacated.
Section 20(1) provides that in making any order on the grounds specified in clause (f) or clause
(g) of Section 14(1), the Controller shall-
 Ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed back into the
possession/occupation of the premises or part thereof from which he has been ordered to
be evicted;

 Record the fact of election in the eviction order;

 Specify in the order of eviction the date on or before which the tenant shall deliver
possession to the landlord to enable him to commence work of repairs.

13
In the case of, Harrington High School v. S.M. Ispahani21, it was held that, the fact that
demolition and reconstruction would result in modernisation, making additional space available
and/or would augment the earnings of the landlord are relevant factors for determining the bona-
fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. It was also held that, the reconstruction plan
sanctioned/approved by the concerned local authority may not be filed along with the eviction
petition, but the same can be and in fact, should be filed at the time of execution of the decree of
eviction.

SECTION 14(1) (h)

This provision applies to those premises which are let for residential purposes only. It has no
application to premises let for non-residential purposes or for a composite purpose. Before 1988
amendment the land lord was entitled to get the premises vacated where the tenant has built or
acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence. But after the 1988 amendment the
term built was removed and a new clause (hh) was added. This provides for eviction of the tenant
who built a residence after the commencement of the act and ten years have elapsed thereafter.

SECTION 14(1) (i)

This section is read along with section 22 of the Act. Where the tenant was giving the service to
the landlord and was given residence to stay in exchange of services. The provision reads that the
premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or
employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment. Section 22 overlaps with this
provision. It lays down additional grounds; the landlords mentioned under this company are
company, local authorities, public institution etc.

SECTION 14(1) (j)

Section 14(1) (j) read with Section 14(10) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the case of,
Suraj Prakash Chopra v. B.N. Dhawan22, it was held that in a case under Section 14(1) (j) of
the 1958 Act, the following propositions need to be kept in mind:

21
(2002) 5 SCC 229.
22
2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 83.

14
 The onus of proving that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the demised
premises is upon the landlord;

 Landlord must prove that addition and alteration in the tenancy premises is carried out by
the tenant;

 Tenant has made the construction without the consent of the landlord;

 The said construction has materially affected the tenancy premises and further that the
construction which had been carried out by the tenant had materially altered the premises;

 Court must determine the nature, character of the construction and the extent to which
they make changes in the structure of the premises having regard to the purpose for
which the premises have been let out;

 Landlord has to prove it by cogent evidence and wherever necessary expert witness
should be examined

 An eviction order under section 14(1) (j) could be passed if the tenant has carried out
such additions or alterations and structural changes in the tenancy premises which had
brought about material impairment in the value and utility of premises;

 Every construction or alteration does not impair the value and utility of the building and
that construction must be of material nature which should substantially diminish the value
of the building either from commercial and monetary point of view or from utilization
aspect of the building;

 A temporary alteration or addition which can be easily repaired without causing damage
to the structure is not “substantial damage” to the tenancy premises;

 Every change, addition or alteration in the tenancy premises will not invite eviction of
the tenant under Section 14(1) (j), and that each case would depend upon its own facts;

 The alteration should be of structural nature and not merely of a decorative nature;

15
  The impairment of the value and utility of the building is to be seen from the point of
view of the landlord and not the tenant.

SECTION 14(1)(k)
It reads that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a
manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi
Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the
land on which the premises are situate. This provision has to be read with Section 14(11) of the
1958 Act.
The requirements of section 14(1) (k) of the 1958 Act can be listed out as follows:
 The user of the premises by the tenant should be contrary to a condition imposed on the
landlord by the Government;

 Such user must continue even after a notice to discontinue the same is given by the
landlord;

 The condition which is contravened by the user of the tenant should be one which is
imposed on the landlord by the Government while giving the landlord the lease of the
land on which premises are situate.

Section 14(11) reads no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on
the ground specified in clause (k) of the proviso of sub-section (1), if the tenant, within such time
as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the
landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount
by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.

In the case of, Faquir Chand v. Ram Rattan Bhanot23, it was held that Clause (k) is not meant
for the benefit of the landlord (the lessee), rather it is meant for the benefit of the lessor, that is,
the public authority (DDA, MCD, L&DO etc). It was further held that, the landlord cannot waive
the duty imposed on him originally by virtue of the lease given to him by the public authority.
The landlord can waive his right, if he had one, but not the right of the public authority, which is
statutory in nature, and there is no estoppel in law as against a statute. The landlord owes a duty
23
(1973) 1 SCC 572.

16
to the “superior lessor”, that is, the public authority, and eviction cannot be set-side under Clause
(k), merely on the ground that, the landlord himself was a party to the breach of conditions under
which the land was leased to him (that is, the landlord).

In the case of, Veera Rai v. S.P. Rao24, it was held that, where the concerned authority insists
that misuse must cease, the Rent Controller will have no authority to permit the continued misuse
of the premises on payment of misuse charges.

SECTION 14(1) (l)

The section reads the landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work at
the instance of the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi in pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme and that
such building work cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. This refers to a
ground of eviction which is necessary for public interest. Municipal authorities may require the
land lord to carry out any building work as a part of development work. It may not be possible to
carry out such work without vacating the premises. When the tenant goes out on this ground, he
has no right to come back. The controller does not retain any jurisdiction in such a case.

SECTION 15

We read all the provisions discussed above along with section 15. We need to delve what does
the section 15 read. It provides when a tenant can get the benefit of protection against
eviction. It provides a counter to the ground of eviction. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily asked by
a landlord to vacate his premises. Only non-payment of rent or discreet subletting are the two
technical defaults committed by a tenant that allowed a landlord to take back his property. Heirs
of statutory tenant are entitled to same protection against eviction as affordable to tenant under
the Delhi Rent Control Act. Conjoint reading of the following two case-laws: Damadilal & Ors
v. Parashram & Ors25 and Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors26, settles the position of
law on this score, stating that, statutory tenancies under both- commercial and residential
tenancies can be inherited.
24
2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 621.
25
1976 (4) SCC 855.
26
1985 (2) SCC 683.

17
As we discussed above in section 14(1) (a) that nonpayment of rent is a ground for eviction but
if he pays or deposits the rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the 1958 Act.
Then in that case he will be protected against eviction. The exception to section 15 is given
specifically under section 15(7). It reads that if a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as
required by this section, the Controller may order the defense against eviction to be struck out an
proceed with the hearing of the application.

     

BIBLIOGRAPHY

18
Books:

Universal Law Series Land Laws Lease, Licences Rent Control and Slum Clearance in Delhi,
Dr Ashutosh, 2018 Edition.

Websites:

https://tripakshalitigation.com/grounds-of-eviction-under-the-delhi-rent-control-act-1958/

https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/analysis-of-delhi-rent-control-act-by-harleen-kaur/

https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in/FEB12/Maheshwar%20Dayal%20Vs.%20Shanti%20Devi.pdf

https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/77v2a2.htm#:~:text=Control%20Act%2C
%201958.-,Under%20Section%2014(1)(e)%20of%20the%20Delhi%20Rent,his%20family
%20dependent%20on%20him'.

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/delhirentcontrol/15.php?Title=Delhi%20Rent
%20Control%20Act,%201958&STitle=When%20a%20tenant%20can%20get%20the%20benefit
%20of%20protection%20against%20eviction

https://www.indialegallive.com/special-story/landlord-tenant-issues-and-the-main-features-of-
the-new-tenancy-act/#:~:text=It%20is%20only%20non%2Dpayment,the%20Delhi%20Rent
%20Control%20Act.

https://www.rerafiling.com/rera-article-detail.php/540/guide-to-delhi-rent-control-act-1958

19