Analysis of Delhi Rent Control Act,1958

Introduction

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.

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

Rent Control Acts (RCAs), including The Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, are
meant to fulfill two main purposes:

• protect the tenant from having to pay more than a standard rent.
• to protect the tenant from arbitrary eviction.

If the amount of rent albeit a property is less than Rs. 3,500/- then the
provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 will apply; however, if the
amount of rent albeit a property is more than Rs. 3,500/- then, the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will apply. If the amount
of rent charged is Rs. 3,500/- exact, then the provisions of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 will apply.

The provisions of this act shall apply to all the hotels and lodges covering
in the jurisdiction and the controller shall have all the rights to fix the fair
rate to be charged for any boarding/lodging.

a. Landlord- A person who is either being entitled to receive the rent (trustee,
guardian) or receiving the rent on account of premises that has been lent to
the tenant. (section 2(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958).
b. Standard Rent-As defined under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958,

Section 6(1) (A) (1) states that in cases of residential premises let out
before the 2nd day of June, 1944 the standard rent means:
 • The basic rent of the premises in case it does not exceed Rs. 600 per
annum.
• In case the basic rent of the premises exceeds Rs. 600 per annum,
then, the basic rent plus 10 percent of such rent.

Section 6(1) (A) (2) states that in case where the premises have
been let out on or after the 2nd day of June, 1944, the standard
rent means:

a. If the rent of such premises have been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer-
Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, or the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control
Act,1952.

• The rent so fixed in case it does not exceed Rs. 1200 per annum.
• In case the rent so fixed exceeds Rs. 1200, then, the rent together with
10 percent of such rent.

b. In every other case, the rent shall be calculated on the basis of 10 percent
of the aggregate of the actual cost of construction and the market value of
the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of
the construction.

Section 6(1) (B) (1) states that in cases of non residential premises
let out before the 2nd day of June, 1944 the standard rent means:

The basic rent plus 10 percent of such rent. In case such rent
calculated exceeds Rs.1200 per annum, then the basic rent plus
15 percent of such rent.
Section 6(1) (B) (2) states that in cases of non residential premises
let out on or after the 2nd day of June, 1944 the standard rent
means:

a. If the rent of such premises have been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer-
Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, or the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control
Act,1952.

• The rent so fixed in case it does not exceed Rs. 1200 per annum.
• In case the rent so fixed exceeds Rs. 1200, then, the rent together with
15 percent of such rent.

b. In every other case, the rent shall be calculated on the basis of 10 percent
of the aggregate of the actual cost of construction and the market value of
the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of
the construction.

The term landlord not only includes the owner but also the person who
collects the rent on behalf of the owner, and moreover this definition
includes the legal representatives of the owner of the premises, as has
been held in the case of Pukhraj Jain v. Padma Kashyap, AIR 1990 SC
1133.

In the case of Imtiaz Ali v. Nasim Ahmed, AIR 1987 Delhi 36, it was held
that even a person holding a general power of attorney, and thus,
empowered to collect the rent on behalf of the owner of the premises,
will come within the ambit of the expression ‘landlord’.
In the case of Emperor v. Dattatraya Sitaram, AIR 1948 Bom 239, it was
held that, even a clerk empowered to collect rent comes within the
periphery of the expression ‘landlord’.

Jurisdiction
It extends to the areas included within the limits of the New Delhi
Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such urban
title, extent areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as
are specified in the First Schedule and the Central Government can
extend the limits of this act to any other urban area by specifying through
the Notification in the Official Gazette.

The proceedings under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
take place before the Rent Controller.

Central Government appoints rent controller by notification in the Official

Gazette under section 35 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bars the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court, but however states as follows by virtue of sub-section (4):
“Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing a civil court
from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question
of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the
person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.”

In the case Mitter Sen Jain v/s Shakuntala Devi, 85(2000)DLT658(SC);

(2000)9SCC720, it was held that even if any new area is included within
the urban area of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a further notification is
required to be issued under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the
Delhi Rent Control Act. Unless the area is so specified in the Schedule by
a notification, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be made
applicable to that area.
It is quite essential to ascertain whether the person to whom the rent is
deposited is actually the landlord or not. This is because, the very basis
of the jurisdiction of the rent controller lies on the premise that there
should be a landlord-tenant relationship existing between the parties
to the dispute. If no such relationship exists then, it might oust the court
of its jurisdiction under the concerned rent control legislation. In the
case of Gomti Devi v. Om Prakash & Anr, 15 (1979) DLT 291, it was held
that the landlord-tenant relationship can be proved by oral evidence
and documentary evidence is not necessary.

Circumstances where the Act shall not be Applied [ Section 3, Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958]

a. to any premises belonging to the Government;

b. to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the
Government in respect of the premises taken on lease, or requisitioned, by
the Government.

Unlawful Charges not to be Claimed or Received [ Section 5, Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958]

1. Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall claim or receive any
rent in excess of the standard rent, notwithstanding any agreement to the
contrary.
2. No person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a
tenancy or sub-tenancy of any premises,
3. claim or receive the payment of any sum as premium or pugree or claim or
receive any consideration whatsoever, in cash or in kind, in addition to the
rent: or
4. except with the previous permission of the Controller, claim or receive the
payment of any sum exceeding one month 's rent of such premises as rent
in advance.
5. It shall not be lawful for the tenant or any other person acting or purporting
to act on behalf of the tenant or a sub-tenant to claim or receive any
payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer or assignment of
his tenancy or sub-tenancy, as the case may be, of any premises.
6. Nothing in this section shall apply-
7. to any payment made in pursuance of an agreement entered into before
the 1st day of January, 1939: or
8. to any payment made under an agreement by any person to a landlord for
the purpose of financing the construction of the whole or part of any
premises on the land belonging to, or taken on lease by, the landlord, if one
of the conditions of the agreement is that the landlord is to let to that person
the whole or part of the premises when completed for the use of that person
or any member of his family: Provided that such payment does not exceed
the amount of agreed rent for a period of five years of the whole or part of
the premises to be let to such person.

Lawful increase of Standard Rent in certain Cases [Section 7, Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958]
 a. Where a landlord has at any time, 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 that
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 seven and one-half per
cent, of such cost.
b. 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.

Notice of Increase in Rent [Section 8, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958]

Where a landlord wishes to increase the rent of any premises, he shall
give the tenant notice in writing 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.

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, 1882.
Eviction of Tenants [Section 14, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958]

The landlord cannot evict any tenant without any valid reason. The
circumstances under which a tenant can be evicted are mentioned
below, but in those cases also the landlord has to make an application to
the Controller for the recovery of the possession on the below mentioned
grounds:

a. The tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent
legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a
notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him.
b. Without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing, the tenant has sub-
let, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises.
c. 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.
 d. That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the
landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his
family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for
whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person
has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The premises
let for residential purposes which having been let for use as a residence are,
without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or
other purposes.
e. 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.
f. The premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of
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
g. 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.

h. 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".
In V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745, 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, AIR 1992 SC 639, 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.
Sub-Tenancy

According to section 17 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the tenant has
to give notice to the landlord of the creation of the sub-tenancy within
one month of the date of such sub-letting and notify the termination of
such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination.

In the case Raghubir Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and ors., AIR1974Delhi108;
9(1973)DLT352; 1973RLR331 it was stated by the court that, “as a matter of
construction of the relevant provisions of the 1958 Act, there is abundant
authority for the proposition that even a deemed lawful sub-tenant has
to serve the requisite notice in order o acquire the status of a tenant and
to claim protection from eviction in execution of a decree for eviction
passed against the tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 14
of the Act.”
In Shri Roshan Lal v. Bhagwati Devi and others, 1969 the Delhi High Court
held that a sub-tenant in lawful occupation of the premises, on eviction
of the tenant, does not become tenant automatically under Section 18 of
the 1958 Act. It was further observed that notice under Section 17 of the
Act is necessary as a condition precedent for claiming the status of a
tenant.

In the case of, Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhury, AIR 1988 SC 852, it was
held that if the landlord accepts the rent from the sub-tenant, it does not
create a sub- tenancy.

Deposit of Rent [Section 27, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958]

• Every tenant shall pay rent by the time fixed by the contract or in the
absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next
following the month for which it is payable.
• The landlord is liable to provide the written receipt for the amount paid
by the tenant as rent and in case the landlord refuses to give such
receipt to the tenant, then the tenant has the right to approach the
controller who as a consequence of this application can direct the
landlord to provide the receipt within two months from the date of
payment made by the tenant.
• The tenant has to deposit the rent within 21 days from the due date
mentioned in the agreement or from 15 days limit fixed thereon.

Landlord’s Perspective

• The Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 is largely considered tenant-friendly

and hasn’t helped the cause of landlords.
• The low rates of return act as disincentives to repair and maintain the
property, often resulting in building collapse.
• Prospective landlords are deterred from entering the rental market,
preventing the supply of new stock.
• Restricting revision of rent - The 1958 Act has no mechanism to bring
the historical rent to the present market rate and gives a tenant the
luxury to pay less than Rs 3,500 per month in perpetuity. An
amendment in 1988, though, allowed landlords to increase rent by 10
per cent every three years. In case the landlord has incurred any
expenditure for any improvement, addition or structural alteration in
the premises and the cost of the improvement, addition or alteration
has not been taken into account in determining the rent of the
premises, he may lawfully increase the standard rent per year.
 • Difficulty in evicting tenant - The conditions under which a landlord
can evict a tenant are stringent and strictly monitored, and rarely can
the landlord extricate the property.
• High cost of maintaining property - Under the controlled regime in
case of old tenancies where the rents have been frozen at historical
low levels the cost of maintenance of these old properties is higher.
The older housing stock thus faces premature decay and degradation
as the landlord finds it difficult to maintain it.

Tenants Perspective

• The Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 was also meant to protect tenants’
interests and although it has served them well, the law became a tool
to harass landlords over the next decades.

• Outstation students studying at colleges in Delhi pleads that the

defunct state of the law allows landlords to exploit them. These
students, miles away from home, are the most defenseless lot of
tenants and do not possess any choice but to heed to the demands of
their landlords.
• Protection against Eviction –

• A tenant cannot be arbitrarily asked by a landlord to vacate his

premises.
• Only non-payment of rent or discreet subletting are the two technical
defaults committed by a tenant that allowed a landlord to take back
his property.
• Heirs of statutory tenant are entitled to same protection against
eviction as affordable to tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Conjoint reading of the following two case-laws: Damadilal & Ors v.

Parashram & Ors, 1976 (4) SCC 855 and Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar
& Ors, 1985 (2) SCC 683, settles the position of law on this score, stating
that, statutory tenancies under both- commercial and residential
tenancies can be inherited.
Model Tenancy Act 2019
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act, 1958)

1. Objective and Scope of the Act

The primary objectives of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are:

• To prevent exploitation of tenants by landlords.

• To regulate rent and standardize fair rental practices.
• To control arbitrary eviction of tenants.
• To provide a legal framework for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants.

2. Key Definitions (Section 2)

• Landlord (Section 2(e)): Includes any person who is entitled to receive rent for the
premises, either as the owner or otherwise. The definition is broad and includes a
person receiving rent on behalf of the owner, such as an agent.
• Tenant (Section 2(l)): A tenant includes any person who continues to be in
possession after the termination of tenancy. However, it does not include a sub-tenant
unless the subletting is with the landlord's consent after 1958.
• Premises (Section 2(i)): Refers to any building or part of a building that is let out for
residential, commercial, or other purposes.

3. Rent Regulation

A. Standard Rent (Sections 6 to 9)

• Section 6: Establishes the criteria for determining the standard rent:

o For newly constructed properties, the standard rent is fixed based on the
construction cost and the prevailing market rate at the time of completion.
o For older properties, it is determined based on similar rents in the
neighborhood or fixed at 10% of the construction cost plus the market price of
the land.
• Section 7: Allows for an increase in rent if there are structural improvements made by
the landlord.
• Section 8: The landlord can request an increase in rent if there is a significant rise in
property taxes or any other unforeseen expense.
• Section 9: Either party (landlord or tenant) can apply to the Rent Controller for the
fixation or revision of standard rent.

4. Protection Against Eviction (Section 14)

The cornerstone of the DRC Act is Section 14, which provides robust protections against
eviction. The Act specifies certain grounds under which a landlord can seek eviction:

Grounds for Eviction under Section 14(1):

 • Non-payment of Rent (Section 14(1)(a)): The tenant must be given a notice
demanding rent. If the tenant fails to pay within two months, the landlord may file for
eviction.
• Subletting (Section 14(1)(b)): Eviction can be sought if the tenant has sublet the
premises without the landlord’s consent after 1958.
• Bonafide Requirement (Section 14(1)(e)): If the landlord needs the premises for
personal use (self-occupation), eviction can be sought. This is one of the most
contested grounds for eviction.
• Misuse of Premises (Section 14(1)(c)): If the tenant is using the premises for a
purpose other than what was originally intended, the landlord may seek eviction.
• Damage to Property (Section 14(1)(j)): If the tenant causes substantial damage to
the property, it is a ground for eviction.

Important Case Law:

• Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. (1998): The Supreme Court held that
the landlord's bona fide requirement is genuine if the landlord genuinely wishes to use
the premises for personal use. The tenant's inability to disprove the landlord’s claim
of need strengthens the case for eviction.
• Anupam Kapoor v. Inder Pal Singh (2002): The Delhi High Court emphasized the
need to consider the landlord's convenience and genuine requirement over the tenant’s
objections.

5. Limited Tenancy (Section 21)

• Section 21 permits landlords to lease premises for a fixed term without invoking the
provisions of Section 14. The lease is for a limited period, and upon expiration, the
tenant is obligated to vacate without any further notice. This provision is used to
bypass lengthy eviction processes.

Case Law:

• Shyam Sunder v. Maheshwari Devi (1998): The Supreme Court clarified that a
limited tenancy under Section 21 cannot be converted into a permanent tenancy, and
the tenant must vacate at the end of the period.

6. Fixation of Fair Rent (Section 9)

• The Rent Controller has the power to fix a fair rent for the premises, considering
factors like the market value, cost of construction, and locality. This ensures neither
party is unfairly benefited.

7. Recovery of Possession (Section 25B)

• This provision was added to introduce a summary trial for cases where eviction is
sought based on the landlord’s bona fide need.
• It allows for an expedited process, limiting the tenant's ability to delay the
proceedings through procedural tactics.

8. Appeal and Revision (Sections 38 and 39)

 • Section 38: Allows for an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller to the Rent
Control Tribunal within 30 days.
• Section 39: Provides for a revision petition to the High Court if there is a substantial
question of law involved.

Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Bill, 1995/1996

The Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Bill, 1995/1996 was introduced to modernize the
existing Act. However, it was never enforced. Here’s what it aimed to change:

Proposed Changes in the Amendment Bill

1. Phased Decontrol:

• It proposed a phased decontrol of rental properties, starting with premises where the
rent exceeded ₹3,500 per month. This would have removed rent control from more
expensive properties, allowing market forces to determine rent.

2. Expedited Eviction Process:

• A streamlined process for eviction, especially for cases involving non-payment of rent
and bona fide need of the landlord, was included to reduce delays.

3. Simplified Calculation of Standard Rent:

• The standard rent would be updated to consider inflation, allowing landlords a fair
return on their property investments.

4. Transfer of Tenancy Rights:

• The amendment aimed to curb inherited tenancy misuse. It limited the right to inherit
tenancy to immediate family members who had been living with the deceased tenant
at least one year before their death.

Critical Analysis of Delhi Rent Control Legislation

Advantages:

• Tenant Protection: The Act provides strong protections against arbitrary eviction,
offering tenants stability and security.
• Rent Standardization: By regulating rent increases, the Act prevents exploitation
and excessive rent hikes, especially for low-income tenants.

Disadvantages:

• Negative Impact on Real Estate Market: The Act disincentivizes landlords from
renting out properties due to low returns and strict eviction controls, leading to a
decline in available rental housing.
• Prolonged Litigation: The stringent tenant protections result in lengthy and
expensive court cases, deterring landlords from pursuing evictions.
 • Obsolescence: The ₹3,500 ceiling, set decades ago, is outdated given current market
rates, making the Act less relevant in today’s context.

Recent Developments and Court Observations

• Supreme Court’s View: In various rulings, the Supreme Court has suggested that
outdated rent control laws need to be reformed to reflect the current economic
realities and ensure fairness to both landlords and tenants.
• Urban Development Initiatives: The government has been urged to revise rent
control laws to promote affordable housing and encourage rental investments in urban
areas.

Conclusion

The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, while well-intentioned, has not adapted to the changing
real estate market and economic landscape of Delhi. The failure to implement the 1995/1996
Amendment has left the rental housing market constrained, with limited availability of
properties and ongoing legal disputes. Reforming rent control legislation remains a critical
issue to balance the rights of tenants with the economic interests of landlords.

This detailed overview should give you a strong foundation for understanding Delhi’s rent
control legislation. Make sure to review relevant case laws and stay updated with any recent
developments in this area. Good luck with your exam preparation!
 Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

Dispute Settlement Mechanisms under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides a well-defined dispute resolution framework,
designed to address various conflicts between landlords and tenants, such as issues related to
rent, eviction, repairs, and standard rent determination. The Act empowers specific
authorities and outlines procedures to ensure fair and efficient resolution of disputes.

Key Authorities under the Act

1. Rent Controller
2. Additional Rent Controller
3. Rent Control Tribunal

Let’s delve into the roles, procedures, and powers of these authorities in detail.

1. Rent Controller (RC)

The Rent Controller is the primary authority under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,
responsible for adjudicating disputes between landlords and tenants.

Functions and Powers of the Rent Controller

• Fixation of Standard Rent (Sections 6, 9): The Rent Controller has the power to
determine the standard rent of a property based on the factors such as cost of
construction, market value, location, and amenities provided.
• Increase in Rent (Section 7): The Rent Controller may allow an increase in rent if
the landlord can prove additional expenses, such as increased property taxes or costs
of significant repairs.
• Eviction Proceedings (Section 14): The Rent Controller adjudicates eviction
petitions filed by landlords under specific grounds, such as non-payment of rent,
unauthorized subletting, misuse of premises, and bona fide requirement of the
landlord.
• Deposit of Rent (Section 27): If a tenant believes the landlord is refusing to accept
rent or there is a dispute regarding rent payment, the tenant can deposit the rent with
the Rent Controller.

Procedure Before the Rent Controller

• Filing of Petition: Either party (landlord or tenant) can initiate a dispute resolution
process by filing a petition with the Rent Controller.
• Notice to Respondent: The Rent Controller issues a notice to the opposite party
(tenant or landlord), giving them an opportunity to respond.
• Hearing and Evidence: The Rent Controller conducts hearings where both parties
present their evidence and arguments.
• Decision and Order: Based on the evidence and submissions, the Rent Controller
issues an order resolving the dispute.
Summary Trial Procedure (Section 25B)

• Section 25B introduces a summary trial procedure for eviction cases where the
landlord seeks possession based on bona fide requirements (e.g., for personal use).
This expedited process is designed to reduce delays in eviction cases.

Key Steps in Summary Trial Procedure:

• Leave to Defend: The tenant must apply for "leave to defend" within 15 days of
receiving the eviction notice. If the Rent Controller finds that the tenant has a valid
defense, leave is granted; otherwise, an eviction order may be passed directly.
• Ex Parte Decision: If the tenant fails to respond or appear in court, the Rent
Controller may pass an ex parte eviction order in favor of the landlord.

2. Additional Rent Controller (ARC)

• Role: The Additional Rent Controller functions similarly to the Rent Controller,
primarily assisting in handling the caseload and ensuring timely resolution of
disputes.
• Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction and powers of the Additional Rent Controller are
identical to those of the Rent Controller, and they handle cases assigned to them.

3. Rent Control Tribunal (RCT)

The Rent Control Tribunal serves as the appellate authority under the Act. It is established
to hear appeals against the orders of the Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller.

Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 38)

• Filing of Appeals: Any party aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller can file
an appeal with the Rent Control Tribunal within 30 days of the order.
• Scope of Appeal: The Tribunal reviews the order for errors in law, procedural
irregularities, or incorrect application of the Act's provisions.
• Powers of the Tribunal: The Tribunal has wide powers, including:
o Affirming, modifying, or reversing the order of the Rent Controller.
o Remanding the case back to the Rent Controller for reconsideration.
o Granting stay orders to temporarily halt the execution of the Rent Controller’s
decision.

Revision Petition (Section 39)

• In cases where there is a substantial question of law, either party can file a revision
petition with the High Court of Delhi.
• The High Court's jurisdiction under this section is limited to examining legal issues,
such as interpretation of the Act's provisions, rather than re-evaluating facts or
evidence.

Key Case Law:

 • V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979): The Supreme Court clarified that
a notice to quit under the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary for eviction
proceedings under rent control laws, as the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is
invoked directly under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

4. Conciliation and Mediation

Though not explicitly provided for in the Act, in practice, many rent disputes are resolved
through conciliation or mediation before reaching formal adjudication. Parties may
voluntarily choose alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to settle their disputes,
especially in cases involving minor disagreements or when both parties seek an amicable
resolution.

Advantages of ADR in Rent Disputes

• Time-Efficient: ADR processes are generally faster compared to formal litigation,

reducing the burden on courts.
• Cost-Effective: It reduces legal expenses for both parties.
• Preserves Relationships: It helps maintain a working relationship between landlords
and tenants, which is beneficial for long-term tenancy.

5. Execution of Orders

Once an order is passed by the Rent Controller or Rent Control Tribunal, the process for
execution is initiated:

• Writ of Execution: The successful party (landlord or tenant) can file for a writ of
execution with the Rent Controller to enforce the order.
• Bailiff Appointment: A bailiff may be appointed to carry out eviction orders, recover
arrears of rent, or ensure compliance with other aspects of the decision.
• Contempt Proceedings: If a party fails to comply with the order, contempt
proceedings may be initiated against them to enforce compliance.

Case Law:

• K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar v. R. Padmavathy (1994): The Supreme Court held that
executing an eviction order must be in strict compliance with the procedure laid down
under the Act, and any deviation may render the execution process invalid.

6. Jurisdiction and Limitation

• Jurisdiction: The Rent Controller has jurisdiction over premises in the urban areas
of Delhi, as notified by the government.
• Limitation Period: The limitation period for filing various applications and appeals
under the Act is generally 30 days unless specified otherwise.

Recent Trends and Court Observations

 • The judiciary has consistently emphasized the need for speedy resolution of rent
disputes to prevent long-term litigations. Courts have also urged the legislature to
modernize the Rent Control Act, making it more balanced and reflective of current
real estate dynamics.
• The trend is shifting towards the use of mediation and ADR mechanisms to handle
disputes more efficiently.

Conclusion

The dispute settlement mechanism under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is comprehensive
but has faced criticism for being tenant-biased and contributing to protracted litigation.
Despite this, the Act provides a structured approach for addressing disputes, balancing the
rights of both landlords and tenants. With the advent of ADR and proposed amendments,
there is potential for reform that could streamline the dispute resolution process, making it
faster and more equitable.