Eviction of Tenants on the Grounds of Sub-Letting Under Section
14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
The Delhi Rent Control Act, under Section 14(1)(b), outlines the conditions
under which a tenant may be evicted for sub-letting premises without the
landlord's written consent. This legal framework ensures a balance
between the landlord's rights and the tenant's obligations, with strict
guidelines for compliance.
1. Legal Framework Governing Sub-Letting
Statutory Provisions for Sub-Letting:
o Section 16 allows sub-letting if it occurred before June 9, 1952,
irrespective of the landlord's consent.
o Post-June 9, 1952, all sub-letting must have the landlord’s
prior written approval. Sub-letting without this approval is
deemed unlawful.
o Section 16 also prohibits landlords from demanding premiums,
pugree, or any other consideration for permitting sub-letting.
Requirement of Written Consent:
o After the commencement of the Act, no tenant can sub-let,
transfer, or assign the premises (wholly or partly) without the
landlord's explicit written consent.
o The burden of obtaining consent lies solely with the tenant.
Mandatory Requirements for Eviction Under Section 14(1)(b) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Evidence of Unauthorized Sub-Letting
Proof of Sub-Letting or Assignment:
The landlord must present evidence showing that the tenant has:
o Sub-let the entire premises or a portion of it.
o Assigned or transferred their tenancy rights to another party.
Nature of Proof:
Evidence may include witness testimony, rental agreements with
third parties, or other documentation demonstrating that a sub-
tenant or assignee is occupying the premises.
3. Sub-Letting Without Written Consent
Mandatory Written Consent:
Sub-letting after June 9, 1952, must have the landlord's prior written
consent. This requirement is outlined under Section 16 and applies
to all sub-letting arrangements entered into after the
commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Absence of Consent:
If the tenant fails to obtain written consent from the landlord before
sub-letting, the act is deemed unlawful. The landlord can then seek
eviction under Section 14(1)(b).
4. Notification Obligations Under Section 17
Tenants and sub-tenants are required to notify the landlord about sub-
letting activities:
Notification of Creation of Sub-Tenancy:
o The tenant or sub-tenant must notify the landlord within one
month of the creation of a sub-tenancy.
o This applies to all sub-letting agreements entered into after
the Act's commencement.
Notification of Termination of Sub-Tenancy:
o A similar notification must be given within one month of the
sub-tenancy's termination.
Failure to Notify:
Non-compliance with these notification requirements strengthens
the landlord's claim for eviction. Additionally, sub-tenants who fail to
notify lose certain statutory protections.
5. Sub-Tenant as a Party to Proceedings
Protection for Sub-Tenants:
Section 18 ensures that a sub-tenant who has fulfilled the
notification requirement under Section 17 cannot be evicted without
being made a party to the eviction proceedings.
Mandatory Joinder:
The landlord must include the sub-tenant as a respondent in the
eviction case if proper notice of sub-tenancy was given. An eviction
order passed without making the sub-tenant a party is not binding
on them.
6. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards
The landlord must comply with procedural requirements to succeed in
eviction:
Application to the Rent Controller:
An eviction petition must be filed before the Rent Controller,
detailing the grounds under Section 14(1)(b).
Burden of Proof:
The onus is on the landlord to establish that:
o Sub-letting occurred.
o Written consent was not obtained.
o Notification requirements were not met by the tenant or sub-
tenant.
7. Judicial Satisfaction
Satisfaction of the Rent Controller:
The Rent Controller must be convinced that:
o Unauthorized sub-letting has occurred.
o All statutory requirements for eviction under Section 14(1)(b)
have been met.
Assessment of Evidence:
The Rent Controller evaluates the evidence presented by both
parties to determine whether eviction is warranted.
8. Special Provisions for Commercial Sub-Letting
Presumption of Sub-Letting in Business Arrangements:
Under Section 14(4), if the tenant allows another person to occupy
the premises under the guise of a "business partnership," it is
presumed to be sub-letting unless proven otherwise.
o The landlord must show that the arrangement is a subterfuge
for unauthorized sub-letting.
o Written consent of the landlord is required for such
arrangements as well.
9. Protection Against Malicious Eviction
While Section 14(1)(b) allows eviction for sub-letting, procedural
safeguards protect tenants and sub-tenants from arbitrary or malicious
eviction attempts:
No Premium or Consideration for Consent:
Landlords cannot demand additional payments or benefits in
exchange for allowing sub-letting.
Rights of Sub-Tenants:
Sub-tenants who notify the landlord in accordance with Section 17
gain direct tenancy rights under Section 18 if the original tenant is
evicted.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
Failure to meet these requirements leads to specific outcomes:
For Landlords:
o Eviction petitions may be dismissed if statutory conditions are
not satisfied.
o Sub-tenants retain occupancy rights if they were not made a
party to the proceedings.
For Tenants and Sub-Tenants:
o Unauthorized sub-letting without consent or notification
results in eviction.
o Non-notified sub-tenants lose protection and are liable to
eviction along with the tenant.
Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (AIR 1979 SC 1745),
the Supreme Court clarified that under State Rent Control Acts, the
determination of tenancy through a notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act is unnecessary. This principle applies to cases of
subletting as well, where eviction is sought based on unauthorized
subletting of the premises. The judgment emphasized that when State
Rent Acts prescribe specific grounds for eviction, including subletting
without landlord consent, the landlord need only prove the statutory
ground without adhering to the procedural requirement of determining the
lease under the Transfer of Property Act.
The Court highlighted that the protective framework of State Rent Acts
supersedes the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. For subletting,
the liability of a tenant to be evicted arises from the violation of the Rent
Act's conditions, not from the termination of the tenancy through a formal
notice. This reinforced the tenant's obligation to comply with the statutory
requirements, such as avoiding unauthorized subletting, while ensuring
that landlords can initiate eviction directly under the relevant provisions of
the Rent Act.
Conclusion
The mandatory requirements for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) ensure a
structured approach to resolving disputes arising from unauthorized sub-
letting. The law protects landlords’ property rights while providing tenants
and sub-tenants with clear obligations and procedural safeguards. By
adhering to these provisions, landlords can reclaim their premises
lawfully, and tenants can avoid eviction through compliance.
