ASSIGNMENT

ON

CONTROL OF EVICTION
OF

TENANT

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………….…3

LIST OF CASES…………………………………………………………………...4
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...5

1
CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANT [Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (c)]….…………………..5-10

Non-Payment of Rent/Arrears of Rent……………………………………………………………5

Sub-letting the Rented Out Premises…………………………………………………………..….7

Impermissible User of the Rented Premises………………………………………………………9

THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956…………...…...10-

13

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS……………………………………………………………….13-15

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………...16

2
 LIST OF CASES

S.No. Name of Case Citation Page No.

1 Albein Plywood v. Janak Kapur 1993 RLR (N) 62 12

2 Joginder Singh v. K.C. Johorey 44(1991) DLT 658 12

3 Jyoti Pershad v. Administratior for the AIR 1961 SC 1602: 12,13

Union Territory of Delhi (1962) 2 SCR 125:
(1962) 2 SCJ 58

4 Kailash Chand v. Ganpat Rai 1989 RLR 274;38 12

(1989) DLT 318

5 Kapil Bhargava v. Subhash Chand 93 (2001) DLT 65 9,10

Aggarwal (SC)

3
 6 Noor Ahmed v. Rehmeti Bi 42 (1990) DLT (SN) 12
27

7 Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal (1977) 1 SCC 750 16

8 Tehl Chand v. Nur Khan 1985 RLR 285; 28 12

(1985) DLT 32

INTRODUCTION

The Rent Control Legislation puts a complete bar on the eviction of the tenants. In this regard,
specific reference is made to Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which is in part
material with other similar kind of provisions as contained in other State Control Legislations.
Section 14 of the DRCA starts with a non-obstantic clause and states that notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contain in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery
of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or controller in favour of the landlord
against a tenant. However, this bar of eviction of a tenant at the instance of the landlord is lifted
by proviso to section 14(1), according to which, on an application made to the Controller in the
prescribed manner, an order for recovery of possession of the premises could be made on one or

4
more of the grounds mentioned therein. Therefore, a tenant can be evicted from the premises
only on those grounds as mentioned in the proviso to section 14(1) of the DRCA.

By way of amendment in the year 1976, some more grounds of eviction were made available to
the landlord in the form of sections 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D.

If none of these grounds exist tenant cannot be evicted from the premises and no application in
this regard would lie before the Rent Controller. Further, the burden to prove these grounds is on
the landlord.

CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANT [Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (c) ]

Non-Payment of Rent/Arrears of Rent

Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of the section 14 of the DRCA, deals with this
ground, if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arears of the rent legally
recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears
of the rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner cause of action would arise in
favour of landlord to approach the Controller for eviction of the tenant.

But the sub-section 2 of section 14 of the DRCA provides that no order for recovery of
possession shall be made on this ground if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by
section 15 of the DRCA. Section 15 provides that in 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 with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the
rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally
recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month
previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by
month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.1

An application seeking an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the amount of rent legally
recoverable from the tenant can also be made even in any other proceedings for the recovery of
the possession of any premises on any other ground under the DRCA and in such a situation,
1
Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

5
Controller may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1)2

However, if in any proceedings qua non-payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord, there is
any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the controller shall within 15 days of
the date of first hearing of such proceedings fix an interim rent in relation to the premises to be
paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of
section (2) of section 15, as the case may be, until the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed
having regard to the provisions of the DRCA and the amount of arrears, if any, calculated on the
basis of standard rent shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month of the date on
which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the Controller may allow in this behalf.3

It is further provided that if there is dispute as to the persons or persons to whom rent is payable,
the controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the Controller, the amount payable by him
under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be and in such a case, no
person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Controller decides the dispute
and makes an order for payment of the same. 4 However, if the Controller is satisfied that such a
dispute as to the identity of the landlord has been raised by the tenant for reasons, which are false
or frivolous, Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with
the hearing of the application.5

The tenant cannot avail such a benefit if having obtained benefit once in respect of any premises;
he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months.6

Sub-letting the Rented Out Premises

Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section 1 of section 14 of the DRCA, deals with the ground of
eviction. It is provided that if the landlord is able to prove before the Rent Controller that the
tenant has sublet the premises further, he is entitled to get back the possession of the premises.
However, section 16 puts restrictions on sub-letting and provides that where at any time before

2
Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
3
Section 15(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
4
Section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
5
Section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
6
Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

6
the 9th day of June 1952, a tenant has sublet 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.7

The section further provides that 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.8

However, after the commencement of the DRCA, it is provided that, 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.9

The section further puts a bar on the landlord to 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 in any part of the premises held by the tenant.10

If the provisions of section 16 have complied with, in such a situation, the premises is deemed to
have been sub-let properly. Otherwise, the landlord is entitled to get the tenant evicted in terms
of clause (b) of proviso to section 14(1), which provides that the Controller may make an order
for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground that the tenant has, on or after the 9 th
day of June 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises
without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.11

On the other hand, where before the commencement of this Act, any premises have been
lawfully sub-let either in whole or in part by the tenant, the tenant or the sub-tenant to whom the
premises have been sub-let may, in the prescribed manner, give notice to the landlord of the
creation of the sub-tenancy within 6 months of the commencement of the Act, and notify the
termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination.12

7
Section 16(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
8
Section 16(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
9
Section 16(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
10
Section 16(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
11
Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
12
Section 17(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

7
The definition of the tenant as provided in section 2(1) of the DRCA. Also includes a sub-tenant,
but it is for a purpose, for the conferment of rights and obligations on such sub-tenant wherever
statute requires under various provisions of an Act, of that which is conferred on a tenant. But
this would have no application where Statute itself treats both as 2 separate entities as is
incorporated both in section 14(1)(b) and sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act. When a tenant
inducts a sub-tenant without written consent of landlord, he makes himself liable for eviction
13
under section14(1)(b) of the Act; Kapil Bhargava v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal . Section 18
which provides that where an order for eviction in respect of any premises is made under section
14 against a tenant but not against a sub-tenant referred to in section 17 and a notice of the sub-
tenancy has been given to the landlord, the sub-tenant shall, with effect from the date of the
order, be deemed to become a tenant holding directly under the landlord in respect of the
premises in his occupation on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have
held from the landlord, if the tenancy had continued.14

However, where before the commencement of Act, the interest of the tenant in respect of any
premises has been determined without a determining the interest of any sub-tenant to whom the
premises either in whole or in part had been lawfully sub-let, the sub-tenant shall, with effect fro
the date of the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly
under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from
the landlord, if the tenancy had continued.15

Thus, it is borne from a conjoint reading of sections 16, 17 and 18 that both tenant and sub-tenant
have been treated as separate entity16

Sub-section 3 of the section 14 of the DRCA, provides that no order for the recovery of
possession in any proceeding under sub-section (1) shall be binding on any sub-tenant referred to
in section 17 who has given notice of his sub-tenancy to the landlord under provisions of that
section, unless the sub-tenant is made a party to the proceeding and the order for eviction is made
binding on him.17

13
93 (2001) DLT 65 (SC)
14
Section 18(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
15
Section 18(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
16
Kapil Bhargava v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal 93 (2001) DLT 65 (SC)
17
Section 14(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

8
Sub-section 4 of the section 14 further clarifies that in any application for eviction of tenant on
the ground of sub-tenancy as provided in section 14(1)(b), 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 premises
ostensibly on the ground that such person is a partner of tenant in the business or profession but
really for the purpose of sub-letting such premises.

Impermissible User of the Rented Premises

Clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section 1 of the section 14 of the DRCA deals with this ground
of eviction. It provides that if the landlord is able to prove before the Rent Controller that the
tenant has used the premises for purpose other than that for which they were let --- (i) If the
premises have been let on or after the 9 th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in
writing of the landlord; or (ii) If the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining
his consent; he is entitled to get back the possession of the premises18

This ground of eviction has to be studied alongwith ground of eviction as provided under clause
(k) of the proviso to section 14(1). Because in both the grounds, tenant is alleged to be using the
premises for a different purpose. According to the ground of eviction as provided in section
14(1)(c ) the Rent Controller may make an order for recovery of possession of the premises after
the tenant has used the premises for purpose other than that for which they were let.

However, sub-section 5 of the section 14 provides that no application for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground specified in clause (c) of
the proviso thereto, 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 or failed 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 it is
public nuisance or that it causes damage to the premises or is otherwise detrimental to the
interest of the landlord.19

18
Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
19

Section 14(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

9
THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956

The DRCA which is a piece of social legislation, meant specifically for weaker sections of the
society, who do not own houses. It encroaches upon the freedom of contract between the
landlord and the tenant. Consequently it curtails the rights and remedies of the landlord to get the
tenant vacated. Landlord’s normal rights, vested in him by general laws, thus, remain suspended
due to the special protective Rent Control Legislation. In case the rented premises falls in an area
which has been declared as ‘slum area’ under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance)
Act, 1956,20 in such a situation, it has been made obligatory on the part of the landlord to seek
permission in writing from the authority described as ‘competent authority’, 21 to institute any suit
or proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of such a tenant. 22 The Act,
came into force in Delhi on 8 th February, 1957. However, if any decree or order has already has
been obtained in any suit or proceedings instituted before the coming into force of the Act, for
the eviction of tenant from such a building or land in Slum Area, the permission would be
obligatory for the purpose of execution of such decree or order. 23 The person desirous of
obtaining the aforementioned permission is required to make an application in writing to the
‘competent authority’ in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 24 On
receipt of such application, the ‘competent authority’, in terms of principle of natural justice,
would give an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry
into the circumstances of the case, as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse
to grant such permission25 where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall
record a brief statement of reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant.26

If a landlord obtains an eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting in respect of a premises in

slum area without obtaining permission under section 19, then the eviction order is a nullity.27
20
Section 3 of the Act Provides for declaration of the slum areas
21
Section 2(c ) of the Act, ‘competent authority’ means such officer or authority as administration may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act.
22
Section 19 (1) provides
23
Ibid
24
Section 19(2) of the Act
25
Section 19(3) of the Act
26
Section 19(4) of the Act
27
Albein Plywood v. Janak Kapur 1993 RLR (N) 62

10
Where permission is sought both under section 19(4)(a) and 19 (4)(b) of Act, competent
authority should consider both.28

Permission under section 19(1)(a) cannot be granted in case tenant is not in a position to arrange
alternative accommodation within his means, if evicted.29

A sub-tenant is not a tenant under the Act and hence to evict him owner of the premises need not
seek permission under 19.30

If an application by landlord to execute eviction decree is dismissed and subsequently status of

the tenant has changed then fresh application by landlord for permission under section 19 is not
barred.31

In Jyoti Pershad v. Administratior for the Union Territory of Delhi 32 the aforesaid provisions of
the Act, were challenged being violative of articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India
on the Ground the ground that the Act, vests unguided, unfettered and uncontrolled powers in an
executing officer while granting or refusing the permission under section 19(3) of the Act. It was
contented that neither section 19 of the Act nor any other provision of the Act, indicates the
grounds on which the ‘competent authority’ might grant or withhold permission either for the
execution of the decree or for institution of a suit/proceedings for eviction of the tenant.
Therefore, the power conferred is arbitrary and offends the fundamental rights of landlord under
article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same point was contended in a slightly different form
by saying that the power conferred on the ‘competent authority’ by section 19(3) of the Act was
an excessive delegation of legislative power and therefore unconstitutional. Besides this, it was
also contended that the vesting of a power in an executive authority to override – at his sweet
will and pleasure - rights property without any guidance from the legislature constituted an
unreasonable restraint on the petitioner’s rights to hold property, right which in the case of
property of the type now in question would include a right to obtain possession from the tenant
in order either to improve it by reconstruction or for the purpose of his own use.

28
Joginder Singh v. K.C. Johorey 44(1991) DLT 658
29
Noor Ahmed v. Rehmeti Bi 42 (1990) DLT (SN) 27
30
Kailash Chand v. Ganpat Rai 1989 RLR 274;38 (1989) DLT 318
31
Tehl Chand v. Nur Khan 1985 RLR 285; 28 (1985) DLT 32
32
AIR 1961 SC 1602: (1962) 2 SCR 125: (1962) 2 SCJ 58

11
However, Supreme Court while rejecting all these contentions observed and held that the
discretion vested in the ‘competent authority’ was not unguided and though the section 19 of the
Act did not in terms lay down any Rules for his guidance, the same may be gathered from the
policy and the purpose of the Act as set out in Preamble and in the operative provisions of the
Act, itself. The Preamble describes the Act as one enacted for two purposes: (1) the improvement
and clearance of slum areas in certain Union Territories, and (2) for the protection of tenants in
such areas from eviction. These twin objects are sought to be carried out by Chapters II and VI
of the enactment. Chapter II which consists of one section – section 3 – provides definitionof
what are “slum areas” and their declaration as such? The tests for determining whether the area
could be declared a “slum area” or not briefly are whether the buildings in the area are (a) unfit
for human habitation, or (b) are by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding etc. detrimental to
safety, health or morals. It is in areas so declared as “slum area” that the rest of the enactment is
to operate. The provisions, however, make it clear that in order that an area may be declared a
“slum area” every building in that area need not be unfit for human habitation or that human
habitation in every building in such area should be detrimental to the safety, health or morals of
the dwellers33 that an area may be declared a “slum area” every building in that area need not be
unfit for human habitation or that human habitation in every building in such area should be
detrimental to the safety, health or morals of the dwellers34

With regard to the object of violation of the right to hold property under article 19(1)(f) of the
Constitution, it was observed that the same was saved by article 19(5) of the Constitution for the
reasons that the restrictions imposed on the exercise of right was reasonable, since it is not at the
‘sweet will and pleasure’ of the ‘competent authority’ that the permission to evict could be
granted or refused, but on the principles gatherable from the enactment.

The court found out that the restrictions imposed cannot be said to be unreasonable. The ban
imposed on the evictions is temporary, though its duration is not definite. In the very nature of
things the period when slums would have seized to exist or restrictions placed upon the owners
of property could be completely lifted must, obviously, be definite and therefore the
indefiniteness cannot be a ground for invalidity – a ground upon which the restriction could be

33
Jyoti Pershad v. Administratior for the Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1961 SC 1602: (1962) 2 SCR 125: (1962) 2
SCJ 58
34
Ibid

12
held to be unreasonable. Again, there is an appeal provided from the orders of the competent
authority to the Chief Administrator. In such cases, if the “Competent Authority” oversteps the
limits of its powers or ignores the policy behind the Act and acts contrary to its declared
intention, the appellate authority could be invoked to step in and correct the error. It would,
therefore, be a provision for doubly safeguarding the policy of the Act is carried and not ignores
in each and every case that comes up before “the Competent Authority”. The procedure laid
down by the Act for the hearing by the “the Competent Authority” and the provisions for
enquiry, renders the “Competent Authority” a quasi-judicial functionary bound to follow fixed
role of procedure and its orders passed after such an inquiry are to be subject to appeals to the
Administrator. These safeguards are very relevant for judging about the reasonableness of
restrictions.

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS

Chapter IIIA was added by section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Amendment) Act, 1976
w.e.f from 1.12.1975, the date on which the ordinance was promulgated. Prior to the amendment,
an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) was tried in the ordinary way, like a petition for
eviction on any ground mentioned in the proviso to section 14. The order of the Controller was
subject to first appeal to the Tribunal and a second appeal to the High Court, till further
amendments by Act, 57 of 1958.

By the Amendment Act of 1976 the Legislature sought to provide quick and simpler procedure
for an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement, as also the newly introduced
ground in section 14A. the occasion was of course to implement the Government order requiring
its servants in occupation of allotted accommodation to vacate, and the opportunity was availed
to extend the procedure for trial of applications on the ground of bona fide requirement.

It was also held that provisions of this Chapter override all existing laws to the extent of
inconsistency, including the Slum Act, 1956. The validity of summary procedure has been
upheld by the SC. The provisions of the Third Schedule are not in consistency with the
provisions of the Act and the challenge to validity of section 25B(4) is the abuse of the process
of the Court.35

35
Ram Kishan & Sons v. Union of India 199 (2013) DLT 71 (DB)

13
By the Amendment Act, 57 of 1988, section 25B(1) has been amended, and its scope expanded
to include eviction petitions on the new grounds in sections 14B, 14C and 14D. It has been held
that all the provisions of this Chapter shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such petitions.36

It is not possible to apply the procedure laid down in section 25B to them. It is also not possible
that a petition u/s 25B may be made while the first one is pending. The landlord may, however,
withdraw the pending petition with permission to file another under section 25B.37

Section 25A, which is the first of the collocation of the sections appearing in Chapter IIIA,
provides that the provisions of the Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in DRCA or in any other
law for the time being in force. The marginal note to section 25A reads: “provisions of this
Chapter have an overriding effect.”

Section 25A provides that the provisions of Chapter IIIA containing sections 25A, 25B and 25C
shall have an overriding effect over every other provision DRCA which is inconsistent with
anything contained in Chapter IIIA and that the provisions of Chapter IIIA shall also have
overriding effect over anything inconsistent with anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any other law for the time being in force. By virtue of the first part of section 25A, the provisions
of Chapter IIIA must prevail over the provisions of section 54 of the DRCA. Section 54 saves the
operation of the Slum Clearance Act, it is inconsistent with the provisions of chapter IIIA which
prescribes special procedure for dealing with applications for eviction filed under clause (e) of
the proviso to section 14(1) or under section 14A of DRCA. By reason of the second part of
section 25A also, the provisions of Chapter IIIA would prevail over those of the Slum Clearance
Act.38

36
Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India 1991 (1) RCR 347 (SC)
37
Paramjit Singh v Prakash Kaur 1977 Raj LR 236
38
Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal (1977) 1 SCC 750

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes Referred:

The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

The Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956

Books Referred:

Dr. Ashutosh, Lease, Licenses Rent Control and Slum Clearance in Delhi (Universal Law
Publishing )

15
16