LAND AND REAL ESTATE LAWS
Submitted by:
GRACY TANWAR
BBA LLB , 5TH YEAR
01916503520
Submitted to:
Mrs Kanwal D.P. Singh ma’am
Ms.Sheetal Gahlot ma’am
GROUNDS OF EVICTION UNDER DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
NUISANCE
A tenant may only be evicted for [Pushpa Devi v Om Perkash ( 1979 )
misuse if it constitutes a public nuisance must be public, not merely private. Misuse that is
nuisance, and the tenant fails to detrimental to the landlord’s interests includes actions that
cease the misuse after receiving jeopardize the property or the landlord’s reputation. For example,
notice under Section 14(5) using residential premises for commercial activities may harm the
landlord’s interests
Courts have developed the concept of "primary and
CHANGE OF USER dominant use" to assess such situations. Judicial decisions
indicate that if the premises are primarily used for their
The phrase "Change of User" original purpose and the secondary use is incidental, this
under clause (c) of the proviso to does not typically constitute a "change of user" under the
Section 14(1) requires the Act.
landlord to prove that the tenant
has used the premises for a Bishamber Dass Kohli v. Satya Bhalla(1993 SC), the
purpose other than that for which Supreme Court found that converting part of a
they were let. residential premises into a lawyer’s office without the
landlord’s consent was a change of user. This change
altered the character of the building from residential to
a scheduled building, justifying eviction.
NON OCCUPATION
This clause specifically applies to premises that have been
let out solely for residential purposes and does not
A ground for tenant's
extend to premises rented for non-residential,
eviction under clause (d) of
commercial, or composite purposes.
the proviso to Section 14(1)
of the Delhi Rent Control
Act pertains to the non-
occupation of residential Asha Rani v Satinder Kumar (2009 Del HC)
premises. if neither the tenant nor any member of their family has
resided in the premises for a continuous period of six months
immediately before the filing of the eviction petition, the tenant
becomes liable for eviction. The purpose behind this provision
is to ensure that tenants do not cease residing in the premises
without a reasonable cause.
VOILATION OF LEASE OBLIGATIONS
Clause (k) of proviso to Section 14(1) of Faqir Chand v Ram Rattan Bhanot
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 addresses
the situation where a tenant uses or deals Explaining the rationale behind clause (k) and its connection
with the premises in a manner that to sub-section (11) of Section 14, the Supreme Court, has
violates conditions imposed on the clarified that the legislature was concerned about ensuring
landlord by public authorities such as the that lands leased by authorities like the Government, DDA,
Government, the Delhi Development and MCD are used for the purposes they were intended.
Authority (DDA), or the Municipal The policy behind these provisions is not merely to enable
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in granting the authorities to reclaim possession of the leased lands but
the lease of the land on which the premises to put an end to unauthorized use of such lands.
are constructed.
OBLIGATION TO VACATE PREmISES FOR REPAIR
If the landlord fails to fulfill this obligation even
Clause (f) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of after receiving notice from the tenant, sub-sections
(2) and (3) of Section 44 provide recourse for the
the Delhi Rent Control Act establishes a
tenant. For minor repairs, the tenant can carry them
ground for eviction when a landlord
out independently and recover the costs either from
requires the premises to be vacated for the landlord or by deducting them from the rent,
repairs. According to Section 44(1) of the though such deductions are capped at one-twelfth of
Act, it is the landlord's responsibility to the annual rent.
maintain the demised premises in "good and
tenantable repairs." Piara Lai v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, (1988 SC)
the Supreme Court held that the repair of a single
room's roof did not justify eviction under unless it
indicated a broader, serious condition affecting the
entire premises.
TENANT'S OBLIGATION TO VACATE THE PREmISES ON ACqUISITION OF ALTERNATIVE RESIdENTIAL ACCOmmOdATION:
Clause (h) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Ganpat Ram v Gayatri Dev
Delhi Rent Control Act provides a ground for
eviction when a tenant acquires alternative Under Clause (h), the key requirements are that
residential accommodation. This clause allows the premises in question must have been let out
the landlord to seek possession of the demised for residential purposes, and the newly
premises if the tenant has either acquired vacant acquired premises must also be residential. The
possession of or been allotted another residence, clause applies regardless of whether the
landlord owns the property.
whether before or after the commencement of the
Act.
TENANT'S OBLIGATION TO VACATE THE PREmISES ON BUILdING A NEw HOUSE:
Clause (hh) is designed to encourage tenants
Clause (hh) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of
to build their own houses without the
the Delhi Rent Control Act provides a ground
immediate fear of eviction. The clause allows
for eviction when a tenant builds a new
a landlord to seek possession only after ten
residential accommodation after December 1,
years have passed since the construction of
1988, and ten years have elapsed since its
the new residential premises.
construction.
BONA FIdE NEEd OF PREmISES
In R.K. Bhatnagar v. Sushila Bhargava (Smt.), the Delhi
High Court emphasized that "bona fide" conveys
genuineness and good faith. If the landlord’s intent is
not deceitful or based on a whimsical desire, the court
generally accepts the landlord’s plea of bona fide need.
Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of
The landlord’s assessment of their own needs,
the Delhi Rent Control Act provides a considering their status and responsibilities, is given
ground for the eviction of a tenant when the significant weight.
landlord genuinely requires the premises for
Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad established a crucial
personal use or for the residential needs of precedent by holding that the landlord's need must
dependent family members. persist throughout the legal process, including appeals.
This ruling ensures that landlords do not obtain
eviction orders based on needs that cease to exist during
the litigation.
