Delhi Rent Control Act 1958

Preamble
• An act to provide for :

• Control of rents and evictions

• Rates of hotels and housing lodges

• Lease of vacant premises to Government in
certain cases.
 History
• Rent controls were introduced in the early 1900s in the
United States and some other parts of the world to
check uninhibited rent increases and tenant eviction
during wartime housing emergencies.
• The first rent control legislation in India was introduced
immediately after the First World War in Bombay in
1918. It was followed by similar legislations for Calcutta
and Rangoon in 1920. By the end of the Second World
War almost all the major cities and towns in the
countries were covered by rent control measures.
Historical background of the Delhi rent
Control Act
• The first rent control measure in Delhi came after the
outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, under the
Defence of India Rules.
• It was supplemented by another Order under the Defence of
India Rules in 1944.
• Another comprehensive legislation was passed for all parts of
Delhi by the name of The Delhi and Ajmer Marwara Rent
Control Act, 1947. In 1952, it was repealed by The Delhi and
Ajmer Rent Control Act
• Another attempt was made in 1958 to plug
certain loopholes of the 1952 act. In the same
year, the Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act was passed which sought to
protect the interest of the slum dwellers.
• The next comprehensive enactment on rent
control in Delhi was passed in 1958 and came
into force on February 9, 1959. This is the current
legislation of rent control in Delhi and it extends
to the areas included within the New Delhi
Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment
Board, together with the urban areas of the
Municipal Corporation of the Urban Areas in
Delhi.
 What is rent control?
• Rent control relates to the fixing by the government of rent
rates at a particular level, so that all tenants across the board
who fall in a particular category pay the same amount of
money to their landlords. Governments seek to enforce these
controls through instruments of law by means of ‘rent control
legislations’. These rent control legislations lay down the basic
framework within which the government can enforce its
strictures. They are seen to be weapons in the hands of the
tenants against the profit minded tendencies of the landlords.
The State steps in to ensure that by standardising rates at
which properties are rented out, it ensures that a large
number of its citizens have access to housing at affordable
rates, something which a de-regulated market would have
made impossible for them.
 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RENT LAWS
• Under the Indian Constitution, housing (provision of) is a state subject.
Thus, the enactment and enforcement of rent control laws is the
responsibility of the individual states. This is in accordance with the
federal nature of the Indian Republic.

• The common thread running through almost all rent control Acts and
legislations is that they are intended to serve two purposes:

• 1. To protect the tenant from eviction from the house where he is living
except for defined reasons and on defined conditions; and
• 2. To protect him from having to pay more than a fair/standard rent.

• But most acts also confer upon the landlord the right to evict a tenant
who is guilty of certain specified acts and also when the landlord requires
the house for his own personal occupation.
• There are various grounds under which a landlord can evict
a tenant. The most common of these are listed below.
There are also some states, where one or more of the
provisions given below don’t apply
• 1. Breach of condition of tenancy
• 2. Subletting
• 3. Default in payment of rent for specified period
• 4. Requirement of building for own occupation
• 5. Material deterioration in the condition of the building
• The landlord is required to specify the exact provision of
the relevant act under which he is seeking the eviction of
the tenant, to enable the tenant to take any remedial
action provided in the act.

• The whole idea of a rent control act is to control and

regulate eviction of tenants and not to stop it altogether
 DRCA
• A social legislation- mainly to prevent the tenants
from frivolous evictions.
• At the same time -to give recognition to the
landlords right to property certain measures have
been incorporated to give relief to the landlords.
• New Law:-The Delhi Rent Act was introduced and
approved by Parliament in 1995. The President
gave his assent to the Act but strangely enough,
the Delhi Government has not implemented it
 Exemptions
.
• Exemptions have been granted under the DRC (Delhi Rent Control ) Act Section 3

• • Properties belonging to the government

• • Any tenancy created by a grant from the Government in respect of the premises
taken on lease or requisitioned, by the Government
• • Newly constructed properties for a period of ten years from the date of
construction.
• • Any premises, residential or other, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand
and five hundred rupees

• One bone of contention over the years has been the feature of most Rent Control
Acts to grant exemptions to the properties owned by the government. While
some say that this is a discriminatory practice, their argument is dismissed by the
assertion that the government is not expected to raise rents or eject tenants in the
pursuit of higher revenues. Thus tenants of government owned properties are in
no need of protection
• Rampratap Jaidayal V Dom of India 54 Bom LR
927 it was held that if the Government buys a
building from someone else with sitting
tenants, those tenants would not be protected
by the Rent Act as the first limb of section 4(1)
of the Bombay Act says that the Act shall not
apply to any premises belonging to the
Government or local Authority.
 Atma Ram Properties (P)Ltd v P.S.Jain
company Ltd. 57(1995) DLT 131
• The main Act having been enacted to protect the
tenants assuming them to be the weaker sections
of the society, wisdom dawned upon the
Legislature to enact the provision taking out the
premises carrying a monthly rent exceeding Rs
3500 from the ken of the Act because in its
opinion such premises would not be occupied by
persons belonging to weaker section of the
society.
•
 Vishwant Kumar v Madan Kumar AIR
2004 SC 1887
• Landlord (R ) Tenant (A)
• Facts of the Case:
• 7th May 1976 agreement between landlord (R) and tenant
(A)- on lease a shop of Rs 5000 per month.
• In April 1978 the appellant filed a petition for fixation of
standard rent under sec 9 of the Rent Act- the contention
of the appellant was that the standard rent would be fixed
at Rs 1350 per month and that the rent agreed upon at Rs
5000 per month was excessive.
• In March 1987 the respondent filed his written statement.
• The case was pending on 1-12-1988 when sec 3 © was
inserted
• In May 2000 when the case was pending the
respondent moved an application under sec 151 CPC
before the rent controller seeking dismissal of standard
rent application made by the tenant in view of the
amended sec 3 (c )
• Rent controller allowed the landlords application –
dismissed the standard rent application.
• In 2001 appeal to the tribunal- dismissed
• HC also dismissed the application
• Matter decided by the SC-The application has been
correctly dismissed- The object of the amending act
,1988 is to strike a balance between the claims of the
landlord who get meager rent and tenants who need
protection from arbitrary eviction.
 D.C. Bhatia V Union of India (1995) 1
SCC 104
• It has been held that the right of the statutory
tenant to pay standard rent is a right to be
governed by the Act and if the legislature
repeals the Act or a part of it , the statutory
tenant can do nothing about it . It is a mere
right and not a vested right.
• Provision regarding section 3 (c ) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act (Amendment) Act 1988 is
valid and not unconstitutional.
Parripati Chandrasekhar Rao & Sons V
Alapati jalaiah (1995) 3 SCC 709
• The right of the statutory tenant to pay rent
not exceeding the standard rent or to get the
standard rent fixed are protective rights and
not vested rights. On the other hand the
landlord has rights recognized under the law
of contract and the Transfer of Property Act
which are vested right and which are
suspended by the provisions of the Rent Act
but the day the rent Act is withdrawn , the
suspended rights of the landlord revive.
Raghunandan saran Ashok saran (HUF)
v Union of India, 2002 (61) DRJ
457(DB)
• Question of law decided: The provisions relating
to standard rent namely sec 4,6 and 9 of the
Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 offend Articles 14, 19
(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution and accordingly
are ultra vires the Constitution.
• Facts of the case: The petitioner is the owner of a
building bearing number 40-42, janpath, New
delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that
under the DRCA the rent is pegged at very low
level which is highly unjust unfair and
unreasonable
 Findings of the court
• 1. With the passage of time the provisions regarding
standard rent have fallen foul of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and
21 of the Constitution.
• 2. It is not uncommon that commercial properties rented
long back are fetching meager rents while the tenants
running their trades in those properties are earning huge
profits. This is an unjust and unreasonable provision. No
one should gain at the cost of the other.
• In case the present situation is allowed to continue it will
also amount to wasting the much needed capital of the
country. Reasonable increase in rents will not only generate
income for the landlords , it will also generate increased
taxes as higher income will give rise to higher collection of
property tax and income tax from the landlords.
 Model Press Pvt. Ltd vs Mohd. Saied
on 19 November, 2008
• The two landlords tried their luck by seeking ejectment of
the respective tenant alleging that a Division Bench of this
Court, in the decision reported as 95 (2002) DLT 508
Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) vs. Union of India,
had quashed Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act 1958 being offensive to Article 14, 19(1)g and 21 of the
Constitution of India and that as a consequence the
landlords became entitled to receive rent at the market
rate and since market rate of rent when suits were filed
was above Rs.3,500/- per month, the tenants were liable to
be ejected by the civil courts because the tenancies were
determined by issuing requisite notice under the Transfer
of Property Act calling upon the tenants to surrender
possession.
• DELHI HIGH COURT
• “It is unfortunate that after the decision in
Raghunandan Sarans case, the legislature has not filled
up the vacuum created in the law with Sections 4, 6
and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 being held
ultra vires the Constitution. But, since under the garb
of interpretation, this Court cannot legislate, the
inevitable consequence has to be that the appellants
can claim no more rent from their tenants other than
the agreed rent which the tenants are happily paying.
Since the agreed rent in both cases is far below
Rs.3,500/- per month, we hold that the learned Trial
Judges were correct in rejecting the plaints as indeed
the claim for recovery of possession against the
respondents was not maintainable before a Civil
Court.”
 Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.Versus
M/s Escorts Ltd. Judgment pronounced
on: 16.03.2012
1. The plaintiff is the owner of the building named Atma Ram Mansion
(formerly known as Scindia House), Connaught Circus, New Delhi and it
had given the suit property admeasuring about 6,000 square feet to the
defendant on lease with effect from 01.01.1962 at a monthly rent of Rs.820/-
and even today the monthly rent of the said property payable by the
defendant to the plaintiff is approximately Rs.1,060/- only, which is very
less compared to the present market rate.
2.The plaintiff states that the prevailing market rate of rent for property
similar to the suit property, is estimated at Rs.10,00,000/- per month
including property tax but excluding other charges.
It is stated by the plaintiff that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was enacted to protect the tenants from
being charged excessive amount of rent, considering the fact that a large
number of refugees had come to Delhi after the partition of the country in
the year 1947, thus, to protect those refugees from being evicted from their
rented accommodation/property and for these reasons Sections 4, 6, and 9
were included in the said Act. But, now the situation has changed and there
has been an enormous increase in the value of properties resulting in abuse
of this law by the tenants. The Act is meant for the benefit of the weaker
section of the society and the defendant in the present case is not eligible for
the protection of the said Act.
The plaintiff is relying upon the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case titled as Raghunandan
Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) vs. Union of India & Ors, 95 (2002) DLT 508
(DB) whereby Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Act were held to be
unconstitutional and ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, in view of striking down of Sections 4, 6
and 9 of the Act, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per
month to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s argument that the observation of the court in Raghunandan
Saran (supra) relating to ground realities should come to the rescue of the
plaintiff in order to enable this court to belief that the increase in rent must
be practicable and not imaginary. No doubt the observation of this court are
practical in nature, but as stated above, this court has to abide by what has
been provided by the statute and cannot due to practical implication do
something which is not permissible under the statute. As discussed above,
Section 6A permits an increase to the extent of 10 % every three years and
the scope of the Section cannot be enlarged to include market rate, which if
done, would lead to doing injustice with the wordings of the statute. Thus,
the said observation although considered by this court cannot be used to aid
the case of the plaintiff.
 Rent in excess of standard rent not
recoverable- sec 4
• No tenant is liable to pay to his landlord an amount in excess
of the standard rent of premises
• Exceptions
1. lawful increase as provided for in the act is permissible
2. periodical increase by virtue of an agreement entered into
before 1st jan 1939 is permissible
• Any agreement for payment of rent in excess of the standard
rent is construed as an agreement for payment of standard
rent only.
• Ex turpi causa non oritur artio “no legal right can spring out of
an illegal contract”
• So long as the standard rent is not determined
by the Controller , the tenant must pay the
contractual rent: after the standard rent has
been determined the landlord becomes
disentitled to recover any amount in excess of
the standard rent.
Unlawful charges not to be claimed or
received sec 5
• No person shall receive any rent in excess of
the standard rent.
• No person shall-
• receive in addition to the rent –any premium,
pugree, claim
• Claim as rent in advance of more than one
months rent
 What is standard rent sec 6
6. Standard rent. -
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), "standard rent", in relation to
any premises means -
(A) In the case of residential premises-
(1) Where such premises have been let out at any time before the 2nd day of
June,1944,-
(a) If the basic rent of such premises per annum does not exceed six hundred
rupees, the basic rent; or
(b) If the basic rent of such premises per annum exceeds six hundred rupees,
the basic rent together with ten per cent, of such basic rent;
(2) Where such premises have been let out at any time on or after the 2nd
day of June, 1944,-
(a) In any case where the rent of such premises has been fixed under the
Delhi and Ajmer- Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 (19 of 1947), or the Delhi
and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (37 of 1952),-
(i) If such rent per annum does not exceed twelve hundred rupees, the
rent so fixed; or
(ii) If such rent per annum exceeds twelve hundred rupees, rent so
fixed together with ten per cent. of such rent;
(b) In any other case, the rent calculated on the basis of [(Note: Subs.
by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3, for "seven and one-half per cent." (w.e.f. 1-
12-1988) ten per cent]. per annum of the aggregate amount of the
[(Note: Subs. by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3, for "reasonable" (w.e.f. 1-12-
1988) actual] cost of construction and the market price of the land
comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the
construction :
(Note: Proviso omitted by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3 (w.e.f. 1-12-1988)
(B) In the case of premises other than residential premises-
(1) Where the premises have been let out at any time before the 2nd
day of June, 1944, the basic rent of such premises together with ten
per cent. of such basic rent:
Provided that where the rent so calculated exceeds twelve hundred
rupees per annum, this clause shall have effect as if for the words "ten
per cent.", the words "fifteen per cent." had been substituted:
(2) Where the premises have been let out at any time on or after the 2nd day
of June, 1944,-
(a) In any case where the rent of such premises has been fixed under the
Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 (19 of 1947) or the Delhi
and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952),-
(i) If such rent per annum does not exceed twelve hundred rupees, the rent
so fixed; or
(ii) If such rent per annum exceeds twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed
together with fifteen per cent. of such rent;
(b) In any other case, the rent calculated on the basis of [(Note: Subs. by Act
57 of 1988, sec.3, for "seven and one-half per cent" (w.e.f. 1-12-1988) ten per
cent] per annum of the aggregate amount of the [(Note: Subs. by Act 57 of
1988, sec.3, for "reasonable" (w.e.f. 1-12-1988) actual] cost of construction
and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the
commencement of the construction:
(Note: Proviso omitted by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3 (w.e.f. 1-12-1988)
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) In the case of any premises, whether residential or not, constructed on or
after the 2nd day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, the
annual rent calculated with reference to the rent at which the premises were let for
the month of March, 1958, or if they were not so let, with reference, to the rent at
which they were last let out, shall be deemed to be standard rent for a period of seven
years from the date of the completion of the construction of such premises; (Note:
The word "and" omitted by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3 (w.e.f. 1-12-1988)
(b) In the case of any premises, whether residential or no, constructed on or after the
9th day of June, 1955, including premises constructed after the commencement of
this Act [(Note: Ins. by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3 (w.e.f. 1-12-1988) but before the
commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988], the annual rent
calculated with reference to the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the
tenant when such premises were first let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent
for a period of five years from the date of such letting out.
[(c) (Note: Ins. by Act 57 of 1988, sec.3 (w.e.f. 1-12-1988) In the case of any premises,
whether residential or not, constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi
Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 and to which the provisions of this Act are made
applicable by virtue of clauses
(d) of section 3, the rent calculated on the basis of ten per cent, per annum of the
aggregate amount of the actual cost of construction of the premises and the market
price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of commencement of the
construction, of the premises shall be deemed to be the standard rent]
(3) For the purpose of this section, residential premises include premises let out for
the purpose of a public hospital, an educational institution, a public library, reading
room or an orphanage.
 Revision of rent
• Sec 6-A- added by means of the amendment
act 1988
• Rent MAY BE increased at the rate of 10%
every 3 yrs.
• Section added primarily for the benefit of the
landlords.
• In case the landlord decides to increase the
rent by means of the this provision the tenant
cannot object to it.
 Lawful increase of standard rent in
certain cases and recovery of charges-
sec 7
• 7. Lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and recovery
of other charges. -
• (1) Where a landlord has at any time, before the commencement of
this Act with or without the approval of the tenant or after the
commencement of this Act with the written approval of the tenant
or of the Controller, incurred expenditure for any improvement,
addition or structural alteration in the premises, not being
expenditure on decoration or tenantable repairs necessary or usual
for such premises, and the cost of the improvement, addition or
alteration has not been taken into account in determining the rent
of the premises, the landlord may lawfully increase the standard
rent per year by an amount not exceeding [(Subs. by Act 57 of 1988,
sec.3, for "seven and one-half per cent." (w.e.f. 1-12-1988) ten per
cent.] of such cost.
• (2) Where a landlord pays in respect of the premises
any charge for electricity or water consumed in the
premises or any other charge levied by a local authority
having jurisdiction in the area which is ordinarily
payable by the tenant, he may recover from the tenant
the amount so paid by him; but the landlord shall not
recover from the tenant whether by means of an
increase in rent or otherwise the amount of any tax on
building or land imposed in respect of the premises
occupied by the tenant:
• Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect
the liability of any tenant under an agreement entered
into before the 1st of January 1952, whether express or
implied, to pay from time to time the amount of any
such tax as aforesaid.
 Improvements addition or structural
alteration
• Kale Khan v Rex AIR 1950 All 417- The test to
determine improvement is whether it has
permanently increased the marketable value
of the property. Ordinary repairs to keep the
premises in a habitable condition will not
attract the provision.
 Notice of increase in rent
• 8. Notice of increase of rent. -
• (1) Where a landlord wishes to increase the rent of any
premises, he shall give the tenant notice of his
intention to make the increase and in so far as such
increase is lawful under this Act, it shall be due and
recoverable only in respect of the period of the
tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on
which the notice is given.
• (2) Every notice under sub-section (1) shall be in
writing signed by or on behalf of the landlord and given
in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1982 (4 of 1882).
• Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
• 106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local
usage.- In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a
lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes
shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of
either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice expiring with the end of a
year of the tenancy; and a lease of immoveable property for any other
purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable,
on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with
the end of a month of the tenancy.1. As to persons competent to contract,
see ss. 11 and 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872 ). 2 Subs. by
Act 20 of 1929, s. 53, for" Chapter XXXI of the Code of Civil Procedure".
• Every notice under this section must be in writing, signed by or on behalf
of the person giving it, and 1[ either be sent by post to the party who is
intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such
party], or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such
tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the
property.
• Therefore the scheme of the DRCA is that
once the standard rent has been fixed- only
the standard rent will be paid by the tenant
and nothing more. However by the provisions
provided in sec 6 A and sec 7 lawful increases
are permissible. Whenever such lawful
increases are made the notice as provided
under sec 8 has to be complied with.
 Fixing of standard rent – by the
Controller sec 9
• The controller fixes the standard rent (sec 6)
and any increase on the standard rent (sec 7)
• Application for the same in the prescribed
manner can be made by the landlord or the
tenant
• In fixing the standard rent or any increase –
the Controller fixes a reasonable amount
having regard to sec 6 and 7.
• In case of a lawful sub-let, the Controller may also
fix the standard rent for the sub-let.
• Wherever for any reason , it is not possible to fix
the Standard rent as the per sec 6 of the Act – the
Controller may fix such rent as is reasonable
having regard to-
• 1. situation
• 2. locality
• 3. condition of the premises
• 4. amenities provided therein
• 5. wherever there are similar premises in the
locality – having regard to the standard rent
payable in respect of such premises.
• The standard rent is fixed in all cases for a period
of twelve months – if the lease is for a period of
less than 12 months the standard rent is
proportionately reduced.
• For the fixation of standard rent(for finding out
the cost of construction of the premises or the
market price sec 6) and any increase on the same
(the addition or alteration referred to in sec 7
)Controller may take the assistance of any valuer
approved by the Central Government
• The Controller also fixes a date from which the
standard rent is applicable.
 Fixation of interim rent sec 10
• During the pendency of the application under sec
9 the Controller has the jurisdiction to fix interim
rent.
• The object of Sec 10 is to give immediate relief to
the applicant pending the final fixation of the
amount of standard rent.
• Prem Sheel Malhan V Km Shanti Sharma 1972
RCR 113- Even though no criteria has been
provided under sec 10 for the fixation of standard
rent, the controller would have regard to the
criteria laid down in sec 6 and 9.
 Limitation for applications- sec 12
• 1. In case of premises let out before the
commencement of this act OR in case of
premises where the cause of action for lawful
increase of rent arose before the
commencement of this Act= 2 years from the
commencement of the Act. (This act came
into force on 9 Feb 1969)
2. In case of premises let out after the commencement
of this Act but before the commencement of the Delhi
Control (Amendment) Act 1988
Where the application is made Where the application is made
by the Landlord by the Tenant
• Within 2years from the date • Within 2 years form the
on which the premises were date on which the premises
let to the tenant (the were let to that tenant.
tenant against whom the
application is made)
• In any premises where the cause of action for
lawful increase in rent arises after the
commencement of the DRCA= within 2 yrs
from the date on which the cause of action
arose.
• Controller may accept applications after the
time period provided if he is satisfied that the
circumstances justify the condoning of delay.
 ADVANTAGES OF RENT CONTROL
1. Cheap housing for poor
Across the world, rent control has kept the rents low for tenants
through decades.
Tenants have had the security against arbitrary increase in rents
as well as evictions.
It has ensured housing to some of the most economically
backward sections of the society, the elderly and the poor.
2. Housing as a fundamental right
One view is that housing is an inalienable human right and rent
control legislations help in providing the poor with this
important fundamental right.
.
3. Benefits to Landlords
During all times standard rent is supposed to be
paid to the landlord, therefore during
recessionary periods the landlord may benefit
from this provision as he gets the assured
rentals.
 DISADVANTAGES OF RENT CONTROL
Although the objectives of rent control look noble at first sight, its long term
implications need to be examined.
1. Rent control causes slums
Rent control kills the incentive to invest in new rental housing. This reduces
supply in the market, leading to scarcity of rental homes. New immigrants
find it difficult to have affordable housing, and end
up squatting on government or private land.
2. Reduced quality of housing
Landlords show little eagerness to maintain and renovate their apartments
due to low return on investment. Rent control reduces housing quality, and
often living standards of the tenants.
3. Rent control benefits the non-poor
Many of those who have lived in rent-controlled
apartments for decades are quite well off now.
Furthermore, low rents have discouraged them
from buying their own apartments.
They continue to stay, paying ridiculous rents at
the
cost of numerous poor immigrants who are
unable to obtain decent, affordable housing.
The very laws that were to provide housing for
the poor are responsible for their plight today.
4. Wasting valuable space
Sometimes, one or few people hold up much larger
portions of accommodation than they need,
preventing the extra property to come into the
market, which could help those in the queue. Since
they are paying low prices, they do not
mind holding on to extra space. If they were paying
for each and every inch, as in a free market, they
would only avail and use an amount which they
really require.
In metropolitan cities especially, where every inch
of land is so valuable, can we afford to let it be
wasted while millions of poor people live in slums
and streets?
 INTERNATIONAL PARALLELS
In Berkeley (California), rent prices actually went
down as the housing supply went up after rent
control laws were removed.
Hong Kong
The immediate result of the 1955 relaxation in rent
control was to facilitate urban renewal . Without
these amendments in rent control Hong Kong
could never have become what it is now – one of
the world’s most modern cities

Enough lesson for Indian cities?

 THE WAY AHEAD THROUGH JNNURM
THE WAY AHEAD THROUGH JNNURM
Amendment of rent control laws is one of the
mandatory reforms suggested in the Jawaharlal
Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
(JNNURM). States are expected to implement the
reform within the Mission period. It is widely
recognized that the existing rent control laws are
biased in favor of the tenant. The objective of the
reform of rent control act is to bring out
amendments in existing provisions for balancing
the interests of landlords and tenants
 MODEL RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION
The Government of India has formulated a Model Rent
Control
legislation in 1992 and state governments were requested
to amend their rent control laws on the lines of the
Model legislation.
As suggested in the MRL, the old act should be repealed
rather than amended as extensive amendments required
to reform the act could lead to confusion and make the
act more complicated.
• Despite the circulation of a Model Rent Bill by the
central government to all states in 1992, little has been
done to reform the archaic Rent Control Acts.
 Delhi and the Model Rent Control
Legislation
A new Delhi Rent Control Act based on this
model law was passed in 1995 but it has not been
notified to date because of resistance from traders
who are sitting tenants.
 TO SUM UP
1. If rent control has to exist for some time, the income levels of
the tenant and the landlords should be taken into due consideration
before a property is declared or continues to be a rent control
property. This is because in many cases,
the income of the tenants is higher than that of the landlord, so it is
the landlord rather than the tenant who is in need of help. After all,
the aim is to help the poor, does not matter if it is the landlord or the
tenant.

2. Rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing. This

has a direct impact on immigrants who are forced to live in slums due
to lack of affordable housing.
Freeing up the housing market from the shackles of rent control will
create sufficient housing in the long-term for all.
• The object and purpose of a Rent Control Legislation was
highlighted by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1985
(2) SCC 683 Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar. In para 23 it was
observed:-
• “The Rent Acts which are indeed in the nature of social welfare
legislation are intended to protect tenants against harassment and
exploitation by landlords, safeguarding at the same time the
legitimate interest of the landlords. The Rent Acts seek to preserve
social harmony and promote social justice by safeguarding the
interests of the tenants mainly and at the same time protecting the
legitimate interests of the landlords. Though the purpose of the
various Rent Acts appear to be the same, namely, to promote social
justice by affording protection to tenants against undue harassment
and exploitation by landlords, providing at the same time for
adequate safeguards of the legitimate interests of the landlords,
the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for
whose benefit the Rent Acts are essentially passed.”
 Definitions
• LANDLORD
• Sec 2(e)
• (e) "Landlord" means a person who, for the time
being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the
rent of any premises, whether on his own
account or on account of or on behalf of, or for
the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee,
guardian or receiver for any other person or who
would so receive the rent to be entitled to receive
the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;
 Tenant
• "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or,
but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes-
• (i) a sub-tenant;
• (ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy; and
• (iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his
tenancy, subject to the order of succession and to this clause, such of the aforesaid person’s-
• (a) spouse,
• (b) son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them,
• (c) parents,
• (d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, as had been ordinarily living in the
premises with such person as a member or members of his family up to the date of his death, but
does not include,-
• any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such
decree or order for eviction is liable to be re-opened under the proviso of section 3 of the Delhi
Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (18 of 1976);
• (B) any person to whom a license, as defined by section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of
1882), has been granted.
• Explanation1. - The order of succession in the event of the death of the person continuing in
possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows:-
• (a) firstly, his surviving spouse;
• (b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving spouse, or if the surviving spouse
did not ordinarily live with the deceased person as a member of his family up to the date of his
death;
• (c) thirdly, his parents, if there is no surviving spouse, son or daughter or any of them, did not
ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to the date of
his death; and
• (d) fourthly, his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, if there is no surviving
spouse, son, daughter or parents of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter
or parents, or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the
deceased person up to the date of his death.
• Explanation II. - If the person, who acquires, by succession, the right to continue in possession after
the termination of the tenancy, was not financially dependent on the deceased person on the date
of his death, such successor shall acquire such right for a limited period of one year; and on the
expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in
possession after the termination of the tenancy shall become extinguished.
• Explanation III.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, -
• (a) where, by reason of Explanation II, the right of any successor to continue in possession after the
termination of the tenancy becomes extinguished, such extinguished shall not affect the right of
any other succession of the same category to continue in possession after the termination of the
tenancy; but if there is no other successor of the same category, the right to continue in possession
after the termination of the tenancy shall not, on such extinguishment, pass on to any other
successor, specified in any lower category or categories, as the case may be;
• (b) the right of every successor, referred to in Explanation I, to continue in possession after the
termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor,
develop on any of his heirs];
Unit IV of the Syllabus
 Control or eviction of tenants
• Section 14 – Protection of tenant against
eviction.
• NON PAYMENT OF RENT:- For eviction on the
ground of non-payment of rent the following
conditions have to be fulfilled:
• 1. relationship of landlord and tenant
• 2. existence of arrears of rent legally
recoverable on the date of notice of demand
• 3. service of notice of demand in manner provided in
section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
• 4. failure of the tenant to pay or tender the whole of
the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within
2 months from the date of service of notice.
• RENT HOW AND WHEN PAYABLE:
• Rent is a periodical payment and may be due annually
quarterly or otherwise as may be agreed to. As per sec
26 of the Act ,every tenant shall pay rent within the
time fixed by the contract or in the absence of such
contract by the fifteenth of the month next following
the month for which it is payable. It has been held that
if rent is payable on a specified day , it is due then and
is in arrears on the following day.
• Prof Ram Prakash v D.N. Srivastava, 2006 (1) RCR
205- Increased rent under the Act becomes
legally recoverable and if not paid or tendered
Section 14 (1)(a) will be attracted.
• M/s Bhagwan Dass Yashpal v Wasu Ram 2000(1)
RCR (Rent)614- If on the death of the landlord , a
dispute arises between his legal representatives ,
it does not absolve the tenant from paying rent.
He cannot take the plea that he did not know to
whom the rent was to be paid after the death of
the landlord as he can deposit the rent in Court
as provided in sec 27 of the Act.
 SEC 14(2)
• SEC 14(2) provides that no order for recovery of possession
shall be made on the ground of non payment of rent , if the
tenant makes payment or deposit as required by sec 15 of
the Rent control act (sec 15 provides that in such a case
even if the landlord has been able to prove the allegation of
non payment of arrears of rent the Rent Controller shall
after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard
,make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord
or deposit within one month of the date of the order the
arrears due.)
• However if the tenant fails to make payment or deposit as
required by sec 15(1) of the Rent Control Act, the Controller
MAY order the defense against eviction to be struck out and
proceed with hearing the application.(sec 15(7)).
• It is pertinent to note that the tenant cannot
avail such a benefit if having obtained the
benefit once in respect of any premises ; he
again makes a default in the payment of rent
of those premises for 3 consecutive months
sec 14 (2).
 Subletting
• Sec 14(1)(b) , sec 14 (4) sec 16 and sec 17 of
the act deal with eviction on the ground of
subletting.
• 14(1)(b) That the tenant has, on or after the
9th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or
otherwise parted with the possession of the
whole or any part of the premises without
obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord;
• 14(4) For the purpose of clause (b) of the proviso
to sub-section (1), any premises which have been
let for being used for the purpose of business or
profession shall be deemed to have been sub-let
by the tenant, if the Controller is satisfied that the
tenant without obtaining the consent in writing of
the landlord has, after the 16th day of August,
1958, allowed any person to occupy the whole or
any part of the premises ostensibly on the ground
that such person is a partner of the tenant in the
business or profession but really for the purpose
of sub-letting such premises to the person.
• 16. Restrictions on sub-letting. -
• (1) Where at any time before the 9th day of June, 1952, a tenant
has sub-let the whole or any part of the premises and the sub-
tenant is, at the commencement of this Act, in occupation of such
premises, then notwithstanding that the consent of the landlord
was not obtained for such sub-letting, the premises shall be
deemed to have been lawfully sub-let.
• (2) No premises which have been sub-let either in whole or in part
on or after the 9th day of June, 1952,without obtaining the consent
in writing of the landlord, shall be deemed to have been lawfully
sub-let.
• (3) After the commencement of this Act, no tenant shall, without
the previous consent in writing of the landlord,-
• (a) Sub-let the whole or any part of the premises held by him as a
tenant; or
• (b) transfer or assign his rights in the tenancy or in any part thereof.
• (4) No landlord shall claim or receive the payment of any sum as
premium or pugree or claim or receive any consideration
whatsoever in cash or in kind for giving his consent to the sub-
letting of the whole or any part of the premises held be the tenant.
• Even after seeking permission of the landlord
for creating sub-tenancy, the tenant is under
an obligation to give notice of creation and
termination of sub-tenancy in terms of sec 17.
• G.K. Bhatnagar (D) by Lrs v Abdul alim (2002)9
SCC 516 if the premises is sub let to a person
in guise of partnership between him and the
tenant, it would be a ground for eviction of
the tenant . In such a situation, interpretation
of the partnership deed to find out the
aforesaid fact of sub-letting would be a
question of law.
• Kapil Bhargava V Subhash Chand Aggarwal AIR
2001 SC 3334 Sec 17(2) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act casts an obligation on the sub-
tenant to give notice to the landlord within 6
months from the commencement of the Act,
even if the sub-tenant is lawful under sec
16(1)
 MS. CELINA COELHO PEREIRA & ORS.
ULHAS MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR
& ORS. AIR 2010 SC 603
• The Supreme Court Celina Coelho Pereira Vs. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar has carefully examined the
meaning, scope and ingredients of 'Sub-Letting' under
various rent control legislations in India.
• (i) In order to prove mischief of subletting as a ground for
eviction under rent control laws, two ingredients have to
be established, (one) parting with possession of tenancy
or part of it by tenant in favour of a third party with
exclusive right of possession and (two) that such parting
with possession has been done without the consent of the
landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent.
•
• (ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the business or profession by
a tenant by itself does not amount to subletting. However, if the
purpose of such partnership is ostensible and a deed of
partnership is drawn to conceal the real transaction of sub-letting,
the court may tear the veil of partnership to find out the real
nature of transaction entered into by the tenant.
•

• (iii) The existence of deed of partnership between tenant and

alleged sub-tenant or ostensible transaction in any other form
would not preclude the landlord from bringing on record material
and circumstances, by adducing evidence or by means of cross-
examination, making out a case of sub-letting or parting with
possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of a third
person.
• (iv) If tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and
retains the control over the tenancy premises with him, may be along
with partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted with
possession.
•

• (v) Initial burden of proving subletting is on landlord but once he is able

to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises
and that tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted premises, the
onus shifts to tenant to prove the nature of occupation of such third
party and that he (tenant) continues to hold legal possession in tenancy
premises.
•

• (vi) In other words, initial burden lying on landlord would stand

discharged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party other
than tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises. A presumption
of sub-letting may then be raised and would amount to proof unless
rebutted.
 Nirmal Kanta (Dead) Through LRs. v.
Ashok Kumar and Another (2008) 7
SCC 722
• "What constitutes sub-letting has repeatedly fallen for the
consideration of this Court in various cases and it is now well-
established that a sub-tenancy or a sub-letting comes into existence
when the tenant inducts a third party stranger to the landlord into
the tenanted accommodation and parts with possession thereof
wholly or in part in favour of such third party and puts him in
exclusive possession thereof. The lessor and/or a landlord seeking
eviction of a lessee or tenant alleging creation of a sub-tenancy has
to prove such allegation by producing proper evidence to that
effect. Once it is proved that the lessee and/or tenant has parted
with exclusive possession of the demised premises for a monetary
consideration, the creation of a sub-tenancy and/or the allegation
of sub-letting stands established."
 [S.F. Engineer v. Metal Box India Ltd.]
[(2014) 6 SCC 780]
• Rent Control and Eviction — Sub-Letting/Sub-Tenant/Sub-Tenancy — Ingredients:
• In order to prove sub-letting as a ground for eviction under rent control
laws, two ingredients have to be established viz. (i) parting with legal
possession of the premises by the tenant in favour of third party,
• and (ii) such parting with monetary consideration.
• The constructive possession has been done without consent of the
landlord and the tenant by retention of control would not make it parting
with possession as it has to be parting with legal possession. Sometimes
emphasis has been laid on the fact that the sub-tenancy is created in a
clandestine manner and there may not be direct proof on the part of a
landlord to prove it but definitely it can bring materials on record from
which such inference can be drawn. The court under certain circumstances
can draw its own inference on the basis of materials brought at the trial to
arrive at the conclusion that there has been parting with the legal
possession and acceptance of monetary consideration either in cash or in
kind or having some kind of arrangement
 Impermissible use of rented premises
• Sec 14 (1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act deals with
eviction on the ground of change of use of premises.
• It provides that if the landlord can prove before the
rent controller that the tenant has used the premises
for purposes other than that for which it was let
• (i) if the premises have been let on or after the 9th June
1952, without obtaining the consent of the landlord in
writing or
• (ii) if the premises have been let before the said date
without obtaining the consent of the landlord
• Landlord is entitled to get back the premises.
Purpose of letting must be first proved
• In order to ascertain that there is a change of
user or not, the purpose of letting has to be
first ascertained . Thus in order to succeed the
landlord must first prove the purpose of
letting.
 Sec 14(5)
• Sec 14 (5) provides that no application for the recovery
of the possession of any premises shall lie under sec 14
(1)(c ) unless the landlord has given to the tenant a
notice in the prescribed manner, requiring him to stop
the misuse of the premises and the tenant has refused
to comply with such requirement within one month of
the date of service of the notice:
• And no order for eviction against the tenant shall be
made in such a case, unless the controller is satisfied
that the misuse of the premises is of such a nature that
it is a public nuisance or that it causes damage to the
premises or is otherwise detrimental to the interest of
the landlord.
• Mahadumar Abdul Rahim Naramwala V Firm
of Shah Manilal Gokaldas (1968)9 Guj LR 104
Where the Premises are let for the purpose of
selling cloth , there would be no change of
user if the premises are used for storing cloth,
as the concept of storing is included in such a
business.
• Ram Nath V Badridas AIR 1951 Punj 435 A
change of user would take place where the
premises let out for business of manufacturing
buttons are used for a different business of
manufacturing thread balls.
Ratan lal v Asha Rani JT 1988 (4)SC 83
• The initial purpose was to run a grocery shop.
The tenant started to run a bookshop instead.
The Supreme Court held that this cannot
afford a valid ground for ordering eviction.
 Non occupation of the rented
premises by the tenant 14 (1)(d)
• (d) 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
 Baldev Sahai Bangia v R.C. Bhasin AIR
1982 SC 1091
• Question of Law decided:- The word “family”
has to be given not a restricted but a wider
meaning so as to include not only the head of
the family but all members or descendants
from the common ancestors who are actually
living with the same head.
 Facts of the Case
• The Appellant took the premises on rent on May
12,1961 at a monthly rent of Rs 95. At the time when
the tenancy started , the tenant was living in the
rented house with father mother, 2 sisters ,and a
brother. The tenant himself was a bachelor at that time
, but got married subsequently.
• In 1971 the tenant went to Canada followed by his wife
and children. The tenant did not return to India after
1971.
• In 1972 the landlord filed an application for ejectment
of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement
and non residence 14 (1) (d) and (e ).
• Thus the entire case hinged on the interpretation
of the word family
• The Supreme Court held that in our country
members of the family do not evaporate merely
because a member of the family leaves his
household and goes out.
• The decision of the HC was reversed. The HC had
held that since the tenant had settled abroad ,
had no links with the family in India, neither
wrote nor sent them any money for support
therefore the mother sister and brother of the
tenant were not held to be family.
 Bonafide requirement of the rented
premises by the landlord for residence
14(1)(e )
(e) That the premises let for residential purpose 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 the
landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable
residential accommodation;
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, "premises let
for residential purpose" include any premises which
having been let for use as a residence are, without the
consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial
or other purposes;
 Landlord owning several houses
• Earlier View:- Landlord has the choice which
property to select . Brij Lal and others V hari
Singhand others 1975 RCR 103
• Recent Trend:- M M Quasim V Manoharlal AIR
1981 SC 1113 . The landlord who already has
vacant premises cannot evict the tenant on
this ground . This is not permitted as it can
lead to the landlord evicting tenants
frivolously .
 Temporary requirement
• S P Kapoor V Shri Kamal Mahavir Prasad
Murarka and others 2002 (2) RCR (Rent
Control Reporter) 164
• Landlord permanently lives outside Delhi.
Requires premises for frequent visits to Delhi.
• Permissible – as the Section does not specify
that the premises are required for a
permanent purpose.
 Satyawati Sharma (Dead)by Lrs v
Union of India Civil Appeal no. 1897 of
2003 on 16-4-2008
• The effect of the Satyawati Sharma judgment
The judiciary has brought about a change and
held that this ground of eviction would be
available not only with regard to residential
premises but also for commercial premises.
Prior to this landlord could seek eviction of his
tenant under sec 14(1)(e ) only if the tenanted
premises was let out for residential purposes.
• Section 14 (1)(e ) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
is violative of the doctrine of equality
embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India insofar as it discriminates between
premises let for residential and non residential
purposes
• Sec 25 B of the Act deals with the special
procedure for the disposal of application for
eviction on the ground of bonafide
requirement.
 Sec 14 (1)(f)and 14(1)(g)
• (f) That 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;
• (g) 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;
• Whether the premises in dispute has become
unsafe or unfit for human habitation and that
the repairs cannot be carried out without the
premises being vacated are essentially
question of facts and are decided o the basis
of evidence led in a given case.

• Ratan Lal V Sohan Lal 1979(1) RCR 198

premises were declared unsafe as the roof
required replacement .
• Section 20 provides further protection to the
tenant. It requires that the Controller while
passing an order under clause (f) or(g), to do
three things:
• A. ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to
be placed in occupation of the premises or part
thereof from which he is to be evicted
• B. shall record the fact of the election in the
order (specifying date of giving property and
getting back) and
• C. specify therein the date on or before which he
shall deliver possession so as to enable the
landlord to commence the work of repairs or
building or re-building, as the case may be.
 Sec 14(1)(h) and sec 14 (1)(hh)
• (h) That the tenant has, whether before or
after the commencement of this Act, acquired
vacant possession of, or been allotted a
residence;
• [(hh) That the tenant has, after the
commencement of the Delhi Rent Control
(Amendment) Act, 1988, built a residence and
ten years have elapsed there-after;]
 Ganpat Ram Sharma V Gayatri Devi
AIR 1987 SC 2016
• Question of law decided:-For eviction under
Sec 14(1)(h) after the landlord has proved that
the tenant has built ,acquired vacant
possession or has been allotted a residence-
whether it is suitable or not and whether the
same can really be an alternative
accommodation for the tenant or not are
within the special knowledge of the tenant
and he must prove and establish these facts.
 Findings of the Court
• The main contention of the appellant before the
Supreme Court was that there was no finding as to the
suitability of the residence. It was argued that non of
the courts have examined the size of the space,
distance and inconvenience that may be caused to the
tenants.
• The Supreme Court held that the object of clause (h) is
not to allow tenant more than one residence in Delhi,
it is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the
tenant has built the new residence/ acquired vacant
possession or has been allotted a residence. The
landlord also need not prove the suitability of the
premises.
 Sec 14 (1)(i)
• i) 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;
 Benninga (Mitcham) Ltd V Bijstra
(1946)1 KB 58
• The acceptance of rent by the landlord after
the tenant has ceased to be in his service or
employment would not amount to creation of
fresh tenancy.
 Section 14(1)(j)
• (j) That the tenant has, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be
caused substantial damage to the premises;

• Once the Controller is satisfied that substantial damage has

been caused to the premises he does not immediately
make an order for eviction because the provision in Sec
14(10) mandates the Controller to make an order directing
the tenant either to carry out repairs to the damage caused
within a specified period or to pay to the landlord such
amount by way of compensation as he may direct. Order
for recovery of possession can be made only if the tenant
fails to comply with this order.
• (10) No order for the recovery of possession of
any premises shall be made on the ground
specified in clause ,(i) of the proviso to sub-
second (1) if the tenant, within such time as
may be specified in this behalf by the
Controller, carries out repairs to the damage
caused to the satisfaction of the Controller or
pays to the landlord such amount by way of
compensation as the Controller may direct .
 Sec 14 (1)(k)
• (k) 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;
Faqir Chand v Ram Rattan AIR 1973 SC
921
• Question of law decided:- In an eviction
petition under sec 14(1)(k) the landlord is not
estopped or otherwise prohibited from getting
the possession of the property from the
tenant because he himself had let it out for
commercial purpose i.e. for a purpose
contrary to the condition imposed on him
(landlord), by the Government /DDA/MCD.
 Findings of the Court
• The purpose of the Legislature is to prevent
unauthorized user rather than the protection
of the tenant or strengthening the hands of
the landlord in effecting forfeiture
• It would not benefit the tenant even if it is
held that the landlord cannot under the
circumstances evict him . The landlord will
loose his property and the tenant will also
loose
 Sec 14 (11)
• (11) 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.
 Bharat sales Limited V Lakshmi Devi
AIR 2002 SC 2554
• In the proceedings under sec 14 (1)(k) the
tenant cannot be made liable for payment of
any amount towards the misuser charge as
determined under sec 14 (11)of the DRCA, in
case he does not contest the eviction under
the said provision of the Act.
 Sec 14 (1)(l)
• (l) That 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.
 Limited period tenancy – sec 21
21. Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period.-
(1) Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any
premises for a particular period, and the landlord, after obtaining the
permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner, lets the whole
of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may
be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the
tenant does not on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises
then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or in any other
law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf
by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, place the
landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by
evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation
of such premises.
• (2) While making an order under sub-section
(1), the Controller may award to the landlord
such damages for the use or occupation of the
premises at such damages for the use or
occupation of the premises at such rates he
considers proper in the circumstances of the
case for the period from the date of such
order till the date of actual vacation by the
tenant.
Inder Mohan Lal v Ramesh Khanna AIR
1987 SC 1986
• Question of law decided:- At the time of
seeking permission under sec 21 of the DRCA,
the landlord is not under obligation to state
the reason why the premises was not required
by him for that limited period.
 Pukhraj Jain V Padma Kashyap AIR
1990 SC 1133
• Question of law decided:- The proceedings for
recovery of possession under sec 21 of the
Rent Control Act can be initiated and
continued by legal representatives of the
landlord, who had obtained permission but
who died before the expiry of the period of
tenancy.
 Settlement of rent disputes
chapter VI of the DRCA
• 35. Appointment of Controllers and Additional Controllers. -
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint as many Controllers as it thinks fit, and define the local limits within
which, or the hotels and lodging houses in respect of which, each Controller
shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on
Controllers by or under this Act.
(2) The Central Government may also, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint as many additional Controllers as it thinks fit and an additional
Controller shall perform such of the functions of the Controller as may,
subject to the control of the Central Government, be assigned to him in
writing by the Controller and in the discharge of these functions, an
additional Controller shall have and shall exercise the same powers and
discharge the same duties as the Controller.
(3) A person not be qualified for appointment as a Controller or an additional
Controller, unless he has for at least five years held a judicial office in India or
has for at least seven years been practicing as an advocate or a pleader in
India.
36. Powers of Controller. -
(1) the Controller may-
(a) Transfer any proceeding pending before him for disposal to any additional Controller, or
(b) Withdraw any proceeding pending before any additional Controller any dispose it of him or
transfer the proceeding for disposal to any other additional Controller.
(2) The Controller shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) Requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses;
(d) Any other matter which may be prescribed,
And any proceeding before the Controller shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Controller
shall be deemed to be a civil court within the meaning of section 480 and section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898).
(3) For the purposes of holding any inquiry or discharging any duty
under this Act, the Controller may,-
(a) After giving not less than twenty-four hours’ notice in writing, enter
and inspect or authorise any officer subordinate to him to enter and
inspect any premises at any time between sunrise and sunset; or
(b) By written order, require any person to produce for his inspection
all such accounts, book or other documents relevant to the inquiry at
such time and at such place as may be specified in the order.
(4) The Controller may, if he thinks fit, appoint one or more person
having special knowledge of the matter under consideration as an
assessor or assessors to advise him in the proceeding before him.
37. Procedure to be followed by Controller.-
(1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall
be made by the Controller under this Act without giving
him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
the order proposed to be made and until his objection, if
any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the
same have been considered by the Controller.
(2) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,
the Controller, shall, while holding an inquiry in any
proceeding before him, follow as far as may be the
practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes,
including the recording of evidence.
(3) In all proceedings before him, the Controller shall
consider the question of costs and award such costs to or
against any party as the Controller considers reasonable.
38. Appeal to the Tribunal. -
(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act [only on
questions of law] to the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)
consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette:
Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order of the Controller made under section
21.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within thirty days from the date
of the order made by the Controller:
Provided that the Tribunal may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period
of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause
from filing the appeal in time.
(3) The Tribunal shall have all the power vested in a court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when hearing an appeal.
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Tribunal may, on an
application made to it or otherwise, by order transfer any proceeding pending before
any Controller or additional Controller to another Controller or additional Controller
and the Controller or additional Controller to whom the proceeding is so transferred
may, subject to any special directions in the order of transfer, dispose of the
proceeding.
(5) A person shall not be qualified for appointment to the Tribunal, unless he is, or has
been a district judge or has for at least ten years held a judicial office in India.
38A. Additional Rent Control Tribunals. -
(1) For the expeditious disposal of appeals and applications under section 38,
the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
as many Additional Rent Control Tribunals as it deem fit and appoint to each
such Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
Additional Tribunal) on person qualified for appointment to the Tribunal in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of that section.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 38, the Tribunal, may, by
order in writing, -
(a) Specify the appeals or classes of appeals under sub-section (1) of that
section which may be preferred to an disposed of by each Additional Tribunal
and the classes of cases in which each Additional Tribunal may exercise the
powers of the Tribunal under sub-section (4) of that section;
(b) Transfer any appeal or proceeding pending before it for disposal to, any
Additional Tribunal; or
(c) Withdraw any appeal or proceeding pending before any Additional
Tribunal and dispose it of itself or transfer the appeal or proceeding for
disposal to any other Additional Tribunal.
(3) The Provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 38 shall apply in
relation to an Additional Tribunal as they apply in relation to the Tribunal.
38B. Power of High Court to transfer appeals,
etc. -
The High Court may also, on an application
made to it or otherwise, by order, transfer -
(a) any appeal or proceeding pending before the
Tribunal to any Additional Tribunal; or
(b) any appeal or proceeding pending before any
Additional Tribunal to the Tribunal or in any
other Additional Tribunal.
40. Amendment of orders. -
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order
passed by a Controller or [the Tribunal or an
Additional Tribunal] or errors arising therein
from any accidental slip or omission may, at any
time, be corrected by the Controller or [the
Tribunal on an Additional Tribunal] on an
application received in this behalf from any of
the parties or otherwise.
41. Controller to exercise powers of a
magistrate for recovery of fine. -
Any fine imposed by a Controller under this Act
shall be paid by the person fined within such
time as may be allowed by the Controller and
the Controller may, for good and sufficient
reason, extend the time, and in default of such
payment, the amount shall be recoverable as a
fine under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898, and the Controller shall be
deemed to be a magistrate under the said code
for the purposes of such recovery.
42. Controller to exercise powers of civil court
for execution of other orders. -
Save as otherwise provided in section 41, an
order made by the Controller or an order passed
on appeal under this Act shall be executable by
the Controller as a decree of a civil court and for
this purpose, the Controller shall have all the
powers of a civil court.
43. Finality of order. -
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,
every order made by the Controller or an order
passed on appeal under this Act shall be final
and shall not be called in question in any original
suit, application or execution proceeding.
 Case laws- subletting
• In the case of Associated Hotels of India Ltd.,
Delhi v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh AIR 1968 SC
933, Supreme Court held that when eviction is
sought on the ground of subletting, the onus
to prove subletting is on the landlord. It was
further held that if the landlord prima facie
shows that the third party is in exclusive
possession of the premises let out for valuable
consideration, it would then be for the tenant
to rebut the evidence.
In the case of G.K. Bhatnagar (Dead) By LRs. v. Abdul Alim (2002) 9 SCC
516, the Supreme Court held as follows:

"A conjoint reading of these provisions shows that on and after 9-6-
1952, sub-letting, assigning or otherwise parting with the possession
of the whole or any part of the tenancy premises, without obtaining
the consent in writing of the landlord, is not permitted and if done, the
same provides a ground for eviction of the tenant by the landlord.
However, inducting a partner in his business or profession by the
tenant is permitted so long as such partnership is genuine. If the
purpose of such partnership may ostensibly be to carry on the
business or profession in partnership, but the real purpose be sub-
letting of the premises to such other person who is inducted ostensibly
as a partner, then the same shall be deemed to be an act of sub-letting
attracting the applicability of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section
14 of the Act."
• Normal Kanta (Dead) Through LRs. v. Ashok Kumar and Another
(2008) 7 SCC 722 , Supreme Court held thus :
•

• "What constitutes sub-letting has repeatedly fallen for the

consideration of this Court in various cases and it is now well-
established that a sub-tenancy or a sub-letting comes into existence
when the tenant inducts a third party stranger to the landlord into
the tenanted accommodation and parts with possession thereof
wholly or in part in favour of such third party and puts him in
exclusive possession thereof. The lessor and/or a landlord seeking
eviction of a lessee or tenant alleging creation of a sub-tenancy has
to prove such allegation by producing proper evidence to that
effect. Once it is proved that the lessee and/or tenant has parted
with exclusive possession of the demised premises for a monetary
consideration, the creation of a sub-tenancy and/or the allegation
of sub-letting stands established."
•
 Celina Coelho Pereira Vs. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar AIR 2010 SC
•
603
The legal position that emerges can be summarised thus:
•

• (i) In order to prove mischief of subletting as a ground for eviction under

rent control laws, two ingredients have to be established, (one) parting
with possession of tenancy or part of it by tenant in favour of a third
party with exclusive right of possession and (two) that such parting with
possession has been done without the consent of the landlord and in lieu
of compensation or rent.
•

• (ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the business or profession by a

tenant by itself does not amount to subletting. However, if the purpose of
such partnership is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to
conceal the real transaction of sub-letting, the court may tear the veil of
partnership to find out the real nature of transaction entered into by the
tenant.
•
• (iii) The existence of deed of partnership
between tenant and alleged sub-tenant or
ostensible transaction in any other form
would not preclude the landlord from
bringing on record material and
circumstances, by adducing evidence or by
means of cross- examination, making out a
case of sub-letting or parting with possession
in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour
of a third person.
• (iv) If tenant is actively associated with the partnership business
and retains the control over the tenancy premises with him, may
be along with partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted
with possession.
•

• (v) Initial burden of proving subletting is on landlord but once he is

able to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the
premises and that tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted
premises, the onus shifts to tenant to prove the nature of
occupation of such third party and that he (tenant) continues to
hold legal possession in tenancy premises.
•

• (vi) In other words, initial burden lying on landlord would stand

discharged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party
other than tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises. A
presumption of sub-letting may then be raised and would amount
to proof unless rebutted.
 Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Atma
Ram Chauhan & Ors. on 13 May, 2011
• The Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad v.
Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. has laid down
illustrative guidelines which aim to reduce
landlord - tenant disputes and to avoid
unnecessary litigation arising therefrom.
Justice Deepak Varma, speaking for the bench
has observed as under;
•
• i) The tenant must enhance the rent at least by ten percent,
after every three years and enhanced rent should then be
made payable to the landlord. If the rent is too low (in
comparison to market rent), having been fixed almost 20 to
25 years back then the present market rate should be
worked out either on the basis of valuation report or
reliable estimates of building rentals in the surrounding
areas, let out on rent recently.
• (ii) Apart from the rental, property tax, water tax,
maintenance charges, electricity charges for the actual
consumption of the tenanted premises and for common
area shall be payable by the tenant only so that the
landlord gets the actual rent out of which nothing would be
deductible. In case there is enhancement in property tax,
water tax or maintenance charges, electricity charges then
the same shall also be borne by the tenant only. (
• iii) The usual maintenance of the premises, except major repairs
would be carried out by the tenant only and the same would not be
reimbursable by the landlord.
• (iv) But if any major repairs are required to be carried out then in
that case only after obtaining permission from the landlord in
writing, the same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to
adjustment of the amount spent thereon, would have to be worked
out between the parties.
.
• (vi) The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the
official valuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the
matter.
• (vii) The rent so fixed should be just, proper and adequate, keeping
in mind, location, type of construction, accessibility with the main
road, parking space facilities available therein etc. Care ought to be
taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord.
• These are some of the illustrative guidelines and norms but not
exhaustive, which can be worked out between landlord and tenant
so as to avoid unnecessary litigation in Court.
 M/S Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Baulal
Birla(D) By Lrs. on 12 May, 2011
• Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra in M/s Ram Prakash Sharma v. Baulal
(D) by LR's has issued general directions in all cases where the tenants do not vacate the
premises in eviction cases despite granting time by the Court or despite furnishing an
undertaking to the Court. The short order reads as follows;
• "Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to
vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not
vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force. We further make it clear
that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the
petition/appeal of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in question and if
the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police
force. This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases
where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this
Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to
initiate contempt proceedings or any other proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction
that when tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the
expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own. If any
extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance. The
Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly.
 Case Studies
Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Dass
AIR 1985 SC 265
• The appellant is a tenant of the respondents in respect of
one room in a house at Kamla Nagar, New Delhi. The rent of
the room is Rs. 10 per month.
• On March 19, 1967, the respondents filed an application for
possession of the room on two
• grounds: one, that the appellant was in arrears of rent and,
two, that they required the room
• bona fide for their own use and occupation.
• Liberty given by the Controller under 15(1) for non
payment of rent rejected on account of bonafide own use
• February 14, 1969.
• On March 9, 1971 respondents filed the instant
application against the appellant for possession
of the room on the ground that the appellant was
in arrears of rent from April 1968until March
1971. In this proceeding the learned Additional
Rent Controller, Delhi refused to pass an order
under Section 15(1) of the Act on the ground that
such a benefit was given to the appellant in the
first eviction petition and that, by reason of the
proviso to sub-section (2)of Section 14 of the Act,
the appellant could not claim that benefit once
again. In that view of the matter, the Rent
Controller passed an order of eviction against the
appellant.
term of letting had expired, the landlord had
no way to have the rent increased. 14. An
amendment to the Delhi Rent Act was made
w.e.f. 1st December, 1988. The premises,
monthly rent whereof exceeded `3,500/- were
taken out of the purview of the Act; Section 6A
was incorporated enabling the landlord to
have the rent increased by 10% every three
years by issuing a notice under Section 8
intimating to the tenant of his desire to so
have the rent increased and the increased rent
became due and recoverable after expiry of 30
days from the date on which the notice was
given. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in
Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran held that
Sections 4,6 & 9 of the Delhi Rent Act relating
to standard rent had not taken into account
the huge difference between the cost of living
in the past and the present time and did not
pass the test of reasonableness and had
become obsolete and archaic and accordingly
struck down the same. However the only
effect of the said judgment is that a tenant
could not apply to have the standard rent
thereof determined and thus could not avoid