JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

LAND LAWS
Sectio14 1(a)-1(l) r/w
Section 15

Presented By:
AKASH NARAYAN
Roll no. - 06
9th SEMESTER
BA.LLB. (Hons.) (Self-Financed)
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
To start off at the very outset, I would like to express my gratitude
towards Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal for giving me the opportunity to
make this project and for being a guiding force throughout the course of
this submission and being instrumental in the successful completion of
this project report even in these tough times of the COVID-19, without
which my efforts would have been in vain.

I would like to thank my parents & friends without who’s help I wouldn’t
have been able to complete this project.
 INDEX
INTRODUCTION

EVOLUTION OF THE DEFINITION OF ‘TENANT’

PROTECTION OF TENENTS FROM EVICTION

CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANTS

Section 14(1) (a)

Section 14(1) (b)

Section 14(1) (c)

Section 14(1) (d)

Section 14(1) (e)

Section 14(1) (f)

Section 14(1) (g)

Section 14(1) (h)

Section 14(1) (i)

Section 14(1) (j)

Section 14(1) (k)

Section 14(1) (l)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 INTRODUCTION
Rent Delhi’s Rent Control Bill was approved by both Houses of Parliament and approved by
the President on December 31, 1958. It came into force on February 9, 1959 as the Delhi Rent
Control Act 1958. It extends to areas within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal Committee
and the Delhi Cantonment Board and the Delhi Municipal Corporation for urban areas. Courts
are legally bound to read the provisions of the law harmoniously to balance the rights of the
landlord and the obligations of the tenant.

Rent control measures are needed when demand for rental property exceeds supply and tenants
are exploited by landlords. These rent control laws (RCAs), including the Rent Delhi Rent
Control Act 1958, are intended to serve two main purposes: protect the tenant from paying more
than the standard rent and protect the tenant from unilateral eviction.

The main purpose of introducing the Rent Control Act, 1958 in India is to protect the rights of
tenants, give them security and restricts the landlords in their ability to evict their tenants. This
Act has been designed for each and every state in India separately. Therefore, here we are
discussing some significant points of the Delhi Control Act, 1958.

No doubt, the rent control legislations are intended to preserve the social environment and are
purposed to promote social justice, but at the same time, some safeguards should also be given
to the landlords as well. In the case of E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and Ors,1 it
was held that the provisions of the rent control legislations are not to be interpreted with a hyper-
technical approach, which indirectly causes frustration of the mischief. Though the rent control
legislations normally intend to benefit the tenant, but still, the tenant also has a duty to strictly
comply with the statutory provisions of the concerned rent control legislations; if a tenant does
not comply with the statutory provisions strictly, then, the tenant should not be allowed to
avail/reap the benefit available to him albeit the concerned rent control legislation; hence,
equitable considerations have no place in such matters.

——————————————————
1
2003 (1) SCC 123
In V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal,2 a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India,
held that, giving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not necessary
as far as eviction against the tenants under any state rent control legislation is concerned. In order
to get a decree for eviction against the tenant, the notice is not necessary. The tenant continues to
be a tenant even thereafter, that post the serving of the eviction notice. The landlord is under a
duty to make out a case from the grounds mentioned under the concerned rent control legislation,
and it shall be sufficient to have the eviction thereafter. The real purpose of the notice of eviction
is to terminate the contract as so subsisting between the landlord and the tenant; eviction
however, is not permissible under the relevant state rent control legislation until and unless,
specific ground for eviction of the tenant as so provided under the concerned state rent control
legislation is not made out.

The first rent control measure in Delhi came after the outbreak of the Second World War in
1939, under the Defense of India Rules. This was restricted to New Delhi and the Notified Area,
Civil Station. In 1942, the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 were made
applicable to the remaining areas of Delhi. It was soon realized that the provision of the Punjab
Act was insufficient for a city like Delhi and thus, it was supplemented by another Order under
the Defense of India Rules in 1944. After the war, 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, which substituted it and ceased
the application of rent Acts of other states to certain parts of Delhi.

——————————————————
2
AIR 1979 SC 1745
 EVOLUTION OF THE DEFINITION OF ‘TENANT’
The Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act defined tenant as meaning a person who took on rent an
premise for his own occupation, or for the occupation of a person dependent on him but did not include a
collector of rent or any middleman who took or had taken any premises on lease with a view to subletting
them to other persons. The purpose of occupation might have been residential or commercial but the
definition itself excluded any question of assignment of the lease or subletting the whole or a portion of the
premises. This definition was also to be read in the light of S.9(1) which laid down that ‘notwithstanding’
anything in any contract, no Court shall pass any decree in favor of a landlord or make any order in favor of a
landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting any tenant whether or not the contract of
tenancy had been terminated, unless it is satisfied..."

Reading the two provisions together it was reasonably clear that the expression tenant though, not so
expressly stated in the definition, was in the context of S.9 intended to include a tenant whose tenancy had
been terminated. S.9(1) therefore made it clear that a person against whom a decree for eviction had already
been passed before the commencement of the Act but who was still in possession on its commencement, was
entitled to protection as a tenant. A person who had been dispossessed or had surrendered possession
otherwise than in execution of a decree could not have the benefit of the section. Obviously 8. 9(1) did not
apply to the case of a decree passed after the commencement of the Act in accordance with its provisions. It
would thus show that the definition 1n the Act, though in general terms, was not the same as it is under the
Transfer of Property Act or’ general law, primarily for one reason that a tenant remained a tenant whether or
not the period of the tenancy had terminated. This expression in itself was again quite vague taking it doubtful
whether termination of a tenancy on forfeiture or by service of a notice to quit were covered. On this
interpretation only tenancies or a specified period would be affected. However, a larger interpretation was
laced on the expression and all cases of ex-tenants who had continued to main on the premises in spite of the
termination of their lease were held entitled to protection.

The original definition in the present Act was as follows: -

’Tenant’ means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent would be payable and includes a
sub-tenant and also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy but shall not
include any person against whom any order or decree to: eviction has been made”.
Current definition: Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 lays down the definition of the term
‘tenant’.

The present clause (l) was substituted for the old one by S. 2(2) of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)Act,
1976, with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the principal.

Act. Sec 2: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- "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.

According to Section 2(l) of the 1958 Act, a person paying or on whose behalf the rent is paid is considered
as a ‘tenant’. This definition is also an inclusive definition, as for example, it includes within its periphery a
‘sub-tenant’ also; even a person continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy along with his legal
representatives is deemed to be a tenant, despite the fact that the contract or the relationship as was so
subsisting has been terminated; these individuals who continue to occupy the premises despite the severance
of the landlordtenant relationship as was previously subsisting are called as the ‘statutory tenants’.

There are two legal concepts that emerge from this, that is, the concept of “tenant by holding over” and the
concept of “tenant at sufferance”.
In the case of R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India held that, a
1
tenant at sufferance is the one who comes into the possession of the land under a lawful title, but who
continues to hold the possession wrongfully even after the termination of the term or the expiry of the lease
by efflux of time. The tenant at sufferance is, therefore, the one who wrongfully continues in the possession
of the premises even after the extinction of the lawful title. There is in fact little difference between tenant at
sufferance and a trespasser.

In Mulla’s Transfer of Property Act, the position of tenancy at sufferance has been stated thus: “A
2
tenancy at sufferance is merely a fiction to avoid continuance in possession operating as a trespass. It has
been described as the least and lowest interest which can subsist in reality. It, therefore, cannot be created by
contract and arises only by implication of law when the person who has been in possession under a lawful
title continues in possession after that title has been determined, without the consent of the person entitled
(that is, the landlord). A tenancy at sufferance does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant.” At
page 769, it is stated, regarding the right of a tenant by holding over thus: “The act of holding over, after the
expiration of the term does not necessarily create a tenancy of any kind. If the lessee remains in possession
after the determination of the term, the common law rule is that he is a tenant at sufferance. The expression
“holding over” is used in the sense of retaining the possession. A distinction should be drawn between a
tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the lease without the consent of the landlord, and a
tenant doing so with the landlord’s consent. The former is called tenancy by sufferance in the language of the
English Law and the latter class is called tenancy by holding over or tenancy at will.

——————————————

1 AIR 1996 SC 140

2 Mulla’s Transfer of Property Act, 7th Edition,

 PROTECTION OF TENANTS FROM EVICTION
The position of tenant is always vulnerable as he/she has to live in the fear of receiving an
unwarranted notice of eviction from the landlord and then, facing again the trauma of
seeking other premises on lease at a cost which may or may not suit their budget and
lifestyle.
The recent upheaval was caused in Mumbai from the outbreak of the news about the state
government’s plan to incorporate its Model Rent Control Act, which was expected to
weaken the protection of tenants from random hike in rent and unwarranted eviction.
Let’s take a look at how law can protect the tenants from this unwarranted and fake act of
eviction by the landlord.
Legal Position on Eviction
If the tenant finds out that the eviction is not bona fide and unjustifiable, then he/she has
the right to be protected from such eviction. The laws pertaining to tenant protection from
eviction are governed by respective state laws and each state has enlisted certain grounds
which legally allow the landlord to evict the tenant. Any other ground other than mentioned
in the list allows tenant to seek the help of laws and courts to protect themselves from such
unwarranted acts of landlord.
In addition to above, there are regional and state laws which govern rent and lease
agreements, carefully drafted, mutually agreed and signed by both tenant as well as
landlord. These State Acts also enable tenants to fight for their right of protection if
landlord compels the tenant to evict him/her for any invalid reason/ground as not
enumerated in the Act.
In general, such eviction cases in the court take longer settlement time and goes on for
about 10-20 years.
Legislations Pan India
The various states have enacted rent control laws that govern the rental agreements which
are made for a period of 12 months or more months. For instance: Delhi Rent Act,1995;
Punjab Rent Act, The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, Tamil Nadu Rent Control
Act, Karnataka Rent Control Act etc. contain standard provisions which ensure fixation of
rent which must not exceed the standard rates, decrees controlling possession, protection
of tenants against unwarranted eviction and many more.
In all the Rent Control Laws of the Indian states, there is a clear section that deals with
protection of tenants against eviction and specifies the grounds that are legally sufficient
for eviction. In fact, as per a judgment passed by the Supreme Court, a landlord cannot
evict a tenant for a minimum period of 5 years if he/she has made the rent payment
regularly and in accordance to the signed Rent agreement. He/she has the right to evict the
tenant only if he/she genuinely needs his/her premises for his/her own use. The Landlord
cannot misuse the law on false grounds to evict his/her tenants.
To name some, there is Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 that protects the tenants
residing in Delhi against eviction by the landlord on any ground other than specified in the
said section. Similarly, the West Bengal premises tenancy Act, 1956 contains almost same
grounds in its Section 6.
Remedies available to the tenants against unlawful eviction by the landlords

• The first and foremost legal remedy available to tenant is his/her tenancy right which
protects him/her from unwarranted eviction. He/she must refer the provisions of
State Rent Control Act and read the grounds specified in the Act. If the landlord is
evicting the tenant on any other ground than specified, then he/she can take the aid
of law & law enforcement bodies to prevent this eviction.
• In case the Landlord compels the tenant to move out or leave the premises without
giving any suitable notice, as required in the mutually signed rent agreement, the
tenant can approach the court and file the suit for injunction. This will legally
impede the landlord to evict the tenant on any other ground than mentioned in the
State’s Rent Control Act.
• In case the landlord sends a notice of eviction on false grounds, then as per Rent
Control Act;

i. Visit the Rent Controller and state the reasons for challenging the eviction notice of the
landlord.
ii. The Court will summon the tenant to present his/her case and he/she will present his/her
reasons in support of requisite evidences. In case the landlord clearly indicates the non-
receipt of the rent as the ground of sending eviction notice, then tenant has the right to send
a written notice to the landlord asking for his/her bank details where he/she can deposit the
rent. The landlord is required to send the details within 10 days of receipt of notice. In case,
tenant receives the details, he/she is required to deposit the rent at the earliest. In case
landlord couldn’t or didn’t reply to the notice within the specified time period, the tenant
can make the rent payment via money order and keep the money order coupons as evidence
of rent payment.

iii. What if the landlord refuses to receive money order? In that case, the last course in the
hands of the tenant is to file the petition in the court of apt jurisdiction and receive the court
order to accept/deposit the rent, in the way decided by the court.

In certain cases, landlord may use harsh ways in order to compel him/her to evict the
tenanted premises, like disconnecting or stopping the supply of electricity or water, then,
the tenant has the right to approach the court for its help in getting restoration and
connection of basis essentials. In this case, the landlord has to accept his/her defeat and
will have to oblige the order of the court.
It is very important for a tenant to know his/her tenancy rights before agreeing to sign the
rent agreement. He/she should also know the authority of landlord and the grounds on
which he/she can sufficiently evict the tenant from his/her premises. This way he/she can
avoid the eviction but if the landlord is maliciously or unjustifiably compelling you to leave
the tenanted premises, then aforementioned remedies can immensely help in taking the
rightful action.