JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

LAND LAWS
SECTION 14 1(a)-1(l)

r/w

SECTION 15

Presented By:

AKASH NARAYAN

Roll no. - 06

9​th​ 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 whose help I wouldn’t
have been able to complete this project.
 INDEX
INTRODUCTION

EVOLUTION OF THE DEFINITION OF ‘TENANT’

PROTECTION OF TENANTS 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)

SECTION 15 - Delhi Rent Control Act

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 restrict 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
proposed 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.

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, 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.

——————————————————
1​
2003 (1) SCC 123
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 a 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, making 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 placed 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.
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;

(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 landlord tenant
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​,4​ ​the Supreme Court of India
held that, a 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 a tenant at sufferance and a
trespasser. In Mulla’s Transfer of Property Act,​5 the position of tenancy at sufferance has
been stated thus: “A 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.” “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. The lessee holding over with the
consent of the lessor is in a better position than the one occupying the premises without such
a consent; the tenancy at sufferance is converted into a tenancy at will by the assent of the
landlord, but the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established until the rent is paid and
accepted, the assent of the landlord to the continuance of the tenancy after the determination
of the tenancy creates a new tenancy.”

​ ​AIR 1996 SC 140

4​

5​
​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
tenants to seek the help of laws and courts to protect themselves from such unwarranted acts of
landlords.
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.
 CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANT
Section 14 ​lays down notwithstanding anything to the contrary to any law or contract, no
order of eviction can be passed except on the grounds mentioned under this Section. These
words give the primacy to rent control law against other laws and the contract itself. A word
‘only’ has been used in Section 14 which makes these grounds as exhaustive but, no doubt, a
landlord can have one or more grounds at the same time to get an eviction. Section 14 puts
various riders before passing the orders of eviction. In simple words, an eviction order shall
follow only if there are grounds mentioned under the Act. If the case is not covered under any
of the grounds, no order of eviction shall follow.

S​ECTION ​14(1) (​a​)

The law does not provide the form of notice or its content, it is just that it must come from a
proper quarter i.e. the landlord or his counsel.

In ​Raghunath ​v. ​Anant Narayan​, apex court held that mere fact that the amount given in the
notice was incorrect was no ground for holding that the notice was bad and the suit was not
maintainable. Since the amount due is within the special knowledge of the tenant, it does not
make such difference and the tenant is under a duty to pay or deposit as per Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act.

S​ECTION ​14(1) (​b​)

The sub-letting is not an act forbidden or prohibited by law. The tenant may sub-let the
premises depending upon the contract between him and the landlord. It is only the absence of
writing of the consent of landlord which makes sub-letting a ground for eviction. The
expression “sub-let, assigned or parted with possession”, no doubt, are different concepts but
in all, there is a transfer of legal possession of the premises to the persons other than the
tenants.

In ​Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjit Singh​, it was held that the initial burden of sub-
letting is on the landlord but once it is discharged, the onus shifts on the tenant.
In the case of ​Jagdish Prasad v. Anguri Devi​, it was held that merely by the presence of third
party the court cannot assume sub-tenancy.

A three-judge Bench, in the case of ​Krishnawati v. Hansraj​, has laid down that if a wife
allows her husband to continue the business from the premises then it would amount to sub-
letting.

In ​Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam​, it was held that merely because a tenant has entered
into a partnership he cannot be held to sub-let if the use and the control is still with the tenant
but if it is apparent that the tenancy has been divided or the possession has been distributed,
it would amount to sub-letting.

S​ECTION ​14(1) (​c​)

By this Section there is an embargo in a sense on a tenant no to use the premises for any other
purpose otherwise than for which he was authorised under the agreement. In this Section,
there is a change of user from residential to commercial or vice-versa. The change of the user
should also be of such a nature that is causing a public nuisance or damages the property or is
detrimental to the landlord.

In ​Pushpa Devi v. Om Prakash​, it was laid down that for having eviction under Section
14(1)(c) a notice should also be given to the tenant requiring him to stop the misuser and the
period of one month should have elapsed from the notice.

S​ECTION ​14(1) (​d​)

This clause is attracted if the premises are let-out for residential purpose only and the period
of 6 months should be a continuous period.

In ​Kapil Bhargav v. S.C. Aggarwal​, the court held that if the sub-tenant is in possession it
would not mean that the tenant is in possession.

​ ​, the court defined and laid down the term ‘family’

In ​Baldev Sahay Bangia v. R.C. Bhasin15
with a wider meaning. It has included not only the head of the family but also all the members,
the descendants and the ascendants from a common ancestor who are living together in the
same house.
S​ECTION ​14(1) (​e​)

The fiction and the mischief of this Section has undergone drastic changes in the recent past.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ​Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of
India & Anr​. ​has shown that how a judicial overreach could and should take place, so as to
bring the law in conformity with the demand of the society. It is also a prime example that
sometimes the judiciary should bring out the legislative aspect if the legislators have turned a
complete blind eye due to vote-bank politics.

In ​Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Anr​., it was held that “​Section
14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and
non-residential purposes when the same are required bona fide by the landlord for
occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the
latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes
only.”

The Supreme Court further opined that “Ends of justice will be met by striking down the
discriminatory portion of Section 14(1) (e) so that the remaining part thereof may read as
under:

“The premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or for any member
of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit
the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable
accommodation.”

In the recent judgment of Delhi High Court in ​Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan Singh and
Anr​.​, Hon’ble Justice Manmohan Singh while adjudicating issue pertaining to bonafide
requirement of premises under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 opined that, ​“it
is not permissible for the tenant to raise such issues pertaining to the age of the landlord, his
experience and financial status. These issues are not much relevant for the purpose of
deciding the application for leave to defend in the eviction petition if it is established prima
facie that the requirement of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and no triable issues are
raised by the tenant.”
In ​Dev Raj Bajaj v. R.K. Khanna​, it was observed that “Where a landlord or his wife were
unable to climb the stairs due to old age ailments and wanted to shift to the ground floor, such
a need of the landlord was bonafide. A landlord can ask for ground floor for his convenience
and comfort of his health.”

In ​Kuldip Mahajan v. Krishna Uppal and Ors​., this Court has observed that “Where landlady
filed a petition on the ground of bona fide requirement as she and her husband are of old age
and landlady’s intention was to shift residence for better medical treatment of her husband, no
malafide was attributed and it was held that a period afflicted by Arthritis would not find it
convenient to reside on first floor when ground floor is also owned by her.”

In ​Balwant Singh Chowdhary & Anr. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd​.​, it was held
that “It is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to
set up, if the landlord wanted the premises for business purposes.”

In ​Gurcharan Lal Kumar v. Srimati Satyawati & Ors​.​, it was observed that ​“Merely because
the exact nature of business has not been described would not take away their bonafide need
to carry out a business (when admittedly both the sons are dependent upon petitioner for this
need). It was observed that if the business need is not disclosed this would not wipe away the
bonafide need of the landlord as has been pressed under Section 14(1) (e) of the
DRCA,1958.”

S​ECTION ​14(1) (​f​)

Under this clause the necessity of making repairs of the premises is made a ground of
eviction, if the same cannot be carried out without the vacation of the tenant from the
premises. The reason for repairs is that the building has become unsafe or unfit for human
habitation. The Act only considers the ​public interest, safety ​and ​well-being of the persons
and not the financial or commercial aspects involved in the repairs or reconstruction of the
building as provided in some of the Rent Control Acts.
 S​ECTION ​14(1) (​h​)

The policy intended under this Section was that the landlords should also have their legitimate
interests safeguarded. When the tenant is no more the vulnerable class or the person in need,
then he should not get the benefit under the Act. In the case of ​Ganpat Ram
v. ​ ​court held that the object of this clause is to protect or restrict the
Gayatri Devi23
statutory protection with regard to only one tenancy. If the tenant acquires another
accommodation, he uses his protection under the Act.

The limitation period for ​Section 14(1) (h) ​is 12 years from the day of knowledge that the
tenant has acquired an alternative accommodation.

S​ECTION ​14(1) (​i​)

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, to be in such 
service or employment. 
  
Service tenancy means that the tenant is occupying the premises because of the fact that he is in
service or employment of the landlord. The essential ingredients of this Section are:

1.A lessor-lessee relationship.

2.Lessee in service of the lessor.
3.Cessation of service.

In the case of ​Madhubala v. Shri Ram Scientific & Industrial Research Foundation​, it was
held that Controller only has to see whether the service of the employee has been validly
terminated or not. He might not wait for the final orders if the Labour Court.

In ​V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal​, a seven judge bench of the Supreme Court of India,
held that, 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.

In the case of ​Priya Bala Ghosh v. B.L. Singhania​it was held that rent can be tendered by
money order, and in case if the money order is sent within time but it reaches late to the
landlord, then, it would be deemed as a valid tender.
S​ECTION ​14(1) (​j​)

This Section talks about that if a tenant has caused or permitted to cause substantial damage
or impairment, then he is liable to be evicted from the premises. Here the damage may be by
the tenant himself or by any third party and the tenant has not stopped the third party. The
words ‘materially’ or ‘impairment’ are very important. It means the diminishing of the quality
or strength of the premises or the construction which is of such a nature that decreases the
value or utility of the building.

Also in the case of ​Suraj Prakash Chopra v. Baij Nath Dhawan​, following points have been
laid down:

i. The onus to prove the substantial damage is on the landlord.

ii. He has to prove that the construction was made by the tenant or any other person and
tenant has not stopped the person.
iii. Landlord has to prove by cogent evidence that the damage is substantial and for this
an expert can also be examined.
iv. Every construction generally does not impair the utility.
v. The impairment has to be seen from the point of landlord and not the tenant.

S​ECTION ​14(1) (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 situated

In the case of,​ Kamla Marwah v. Kapur Fabrics​, it was held that, if premises were let by
the landlord to the tenant for a purpose which was in contravention of the terms of the
principal lease deed subsisting between the paramount lessor (that is, the concerned public
authority) and the landlord (that is, the lessee) under the provisions of the concerned statute
(The Delhi Development Act, 1957), then the tenant using the tenanted premises contrary to
the terms of the 33 principal lease deed subsisting between the paramount lessor and the
landlord cannot claim estoppel based on the tenancy agreement subsisting between the tenant
and the landlord, as there can be no estoppel in law against the provisions of a statute, thus,
eviction of tenant can be sought relying upon terms of the principal lease deed,
notwithstanding the terms contained in the tenancy agreement.
SECTION 14 (1) (l)
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.

In ​Freddy Fernandes v. P. L. Mehra​, 1973 R.C.R. 53(2), the case-law on the meaning of the
expression bona fide as used in clause (e) was reviewed and it was held that the bona fides of the
claim could be subjective only insofar as the landlord has the right to choose between alternative
accommodations according to his convenience. If one of them is more convenient to him than
the other, he is entitled to choose the one which is more convenient. But the extent of his need
cannot be left to his fancy. It has to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In that sense
the need has to be objectively judged.

In ​Ram Narain v. Lakshmi Dass Kundra​, AIR 1971 Delhi 268 the landlord lived on the first
floor and wanted the additional accommodation from the tenant on the first floor. The ground
floor was used for commercial purposes. The landlord was not bound to convert the
accommodation on ground floor into residential purpose but was justified in wanting the
residential accommodation on the first floor adjoining his own accommodation for a residence.
A landlord cannot be precluded from claming back possession of a portion of his property
merely because he has lived uncomfortably in the past and has decided to now live more
comfortably, leading to the institution of a petition for eviction by him on the ground of personal
requirement.

In ​Madan Lal vs Hema Wati​, ILR 1970 Delhi 519 merely because the wife of the landlord is
earning her independent living, and, therefore, is not dependent on him cannot mean that while
considering the needs of the landlord the needs of his wife have to be ignored. Likewise, the
needs of the adult independent son, who normally is accustomed to live with his father, cannot
be ignored, when considering the needs of the father. The words “for himself” have to be
interpreted to mean “for himself as living along with his family members, with whom he is
normally accustomed to live.” This interpretation has to be adopted when there is nothing to cast
any doubt on the bona fides of the landlord, when he makes such a claim. The phrase “or for any
member of his family dependent on him”, occurring in the clause is designed to meet an
altogether different objective. If the landlord himself is not to reside in the premises, as for
instance, when he lives outside Delhi, he still is entitled to claim ejectment of his tenant, if the
premises are required “for any member of his family dependent on him” or “for whose benefit
the premises are held”​. 

 
 SECTION 15 OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction.-

(1) In every proceeding of the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause
(a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the 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 fifteen of each succeeding
month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

(2) If, in any proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any ground other than that
referred to in sub-section (1), the tenant contest the claim for eviction, the landlord may, at any state of
the proceeding, make an application to the Controller for an order on the tenant to pay to the landlord the
amount of rent legally recoverable from the tenant and the Controller may, after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard, make an order in accordance with the provisions of the said sub-section.

(3) If, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), there is any dispute as to the
person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the
Controller the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be until
the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the provisions of this Act, and the amount of
arrears if any, calculated on the basis of the 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.

(4) If, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), there is any dispute as to the
person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Controller may direct the tenant to deposit with the
Controller the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) or 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.

(5) If the Controller is satisfied that any dispute referred to in sub-section (4) has been raised by a tenant
for reasons which are false or frivolous, the Controller may order the defense against eviction to be struck
out and proceed with the hearing of the application.

(6) If a tenant makes payment or deposit as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), no order shall
be made for the recovery of possession on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but
the Controller may allow such costs as he may deem fit to the landlord.

(7) If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section, the Controller may order the
defence against eviction to be struck out an proceed with the hearing of the application.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BOOKS/NOTES

1. KD Ma’am’s notes
2. Kanwal D.P.S Land Laws

ONLINE ARTICLES/E-JOURNALS/ WEBSITES

● https://legaldesire.com/delhi-rent-control-act-1958-an-analysis/
● https://tripakshalitigation.com/grounds-of-eviction-under-the-delhi-rent-control-act
● https://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/delhi-rent-control-act/Section15
● https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/analysis-of-delhi-rent-control-act-by-harleen