The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘Delhi Rent Control Act’) applies to Delhi and New Delhi for the areas as mentioned in the said Act itself. The Delhi Rent Control Act was enacted in the year 1958 and came into force on 09.02.1958.
Why was the Delhi Rent Control Act made in the first place?
In 1939, World War -II broke out. This caused a shortage of housing.With an aim to protect the tenant’s rights, keeping in view the scarcity of residential space caused by World War -II, the New Delhi House Rent Control Order of 1939 was issued under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules. This was applicable only to tenancies for residential premises. The aim was to prevent arbitrary and unreasonable increase in rent and eviction of tenants by landlords, which the landlords might be tempted to do, to exploit the scarcity of residential space existing at that time. Subsequently, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 was applied except to the areas where New Delhi House Rent Control Order of 1939 was in force. Then, the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance no. 25 of 1944 was issued. In 1947, Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was enacted, and this was to be in force only for two years but it was extended for six years. It was by this Act in 1947 that, for the first time, restriction on eviction of tenants from commercial premises was included and since then the same has continued.
In 1947, when Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was enacted, the situation in the Country was un-precedented. The country was being partitioned. The events of that time are unimaginable today. Due to partition of the country there was a large influx of refugees who migrated to Delhi, being the capital. To provide respite to them, and to provide a sense of security in respect of premises taken by them on rent for their residence as well as for their business that the 1947 Act was made. The extra-ordinary and compellingcircumstances, led to the enactment of the Rent Control Laws for Delhi. The aim of the Laws was to restrict the rights of landlords from seeking eviction of tenants and increasing rents, arbitrarily and without any reason. While, eviction could be sought from residential premises for bonafide needs, there was no such provision for seeking eviction from commercial premises, the reason being that livelihood had to be protected at all costs to ensure and encourage rehabilitation of refugees who had settled in Delhi after partition. The Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was replaced by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which was repealed by the Delhi Rent Control Act in the year 1959 as noted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in H.C. Sharma v/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1, as the reason for rejecting the challenge to the Constitutional vires of the Delhi Rent Control Act provisions discriminating between residential and commercial premises.
Between the period 1960 to 1988, there were some amendments to the Delhi Rent Control Act. From then, nothing much has changed in the Delhi Rent Control Act except by judicial initiative undertaken by Courts, considering the changes brought by passage of time.
What happens on the Delhi Rent Control Act being applicable?
An owner/ landlord of a premises can give it on rent to a tenant under an agreement on mutually agreed terms. The mutuality ends here. It is only till here, that there is parity and equality. Once, the premises is let out on rent, the landlord loses control. When the tenancy to which the Delhi Rent Control Act applies is terminated by the landlord, a special right in favour of the tenant becomes operative. On termination, the tenant gets protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act and becomes a statutory tenant as provided under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. There is a bar, an embargo, on eviction of the tenant from the premises unless the stringent conditions for eviction, most of them contained in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, are first satisfied by the landlord who wants to evict a tenant.
The Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable to all premises in Delhi, except those which are specifically excluded under Section 3 thereof. The threshold of monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500/- for the Delhi Rent Control Act to stop applying, though seems attractive, is saddled with the limitation that the rent cannot increase by more than 10% on the last paid rent, and only once in a period of three years.
One interesting aspect is the difference or, if correctly stated, discrimination between residential and non-residential use of premises, on matters concerning eviction. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of “premises” under Section 2(i) includes both residential and commercial premises. Section 3 (c), which is a section of exclusion also does not create any distinction between residential or non-residential use of a premises, and provides that if the rent exceeds a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply. Section 14 also begins as follows “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely…”. It would appear from its reading that while it applies to “premises” as defined in Section 2(i) i.e. both residential and commercial, it actually does not. In Sections 14(1) (a) to (l), some grounds of eviction such as those contained in Sub-section (d), (e), (h), (hh) and (i) qualify the same as applying in respect of residential premises alone and not for commercial premises, while the others i.e. those contained in Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (j), (k) and (l) appear as applying to both residential and commercial premises. There is thus, a discrimination and a class within a class.
The interpretation of the limited grounds available for eviction of tenants under Sections 14 to 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act including the constitutional validity of the same have been subject matter of several litigations which have often landed up at the doors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
In the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of a tenant in respect of a “premises” is provided in Section 2(l). The Explanations contained in the said section, restrict the tenancy rights in favour of legal heirs of a deceased tenant. The restrictions were interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Devi Anand v/s. Union of India 2 to be applicable only to a tenant of a residential premises, and not for a tenant of a commercial premises.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment in the case of Gian Devi Anand considered the issue whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant in respect of commercial premises are entitled to the same protection against eviction, as the deceased tenant or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that (a) the limitations contained in Section 2(l) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied only for residential premises and not to commercial premises, and (b) the Delhi Rent Control Act had treated commercial properties differently from residential properties, by referring to Sections 14(1) (d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded by presuming that the deceased tenant and the legal heirs of such deceased tenant either are, or that they will carry on the same business, or are compelled to carry on the same business for their survival and livelihood. The said Judgment was rendered in the context that the same business is and will be the source of income for the legal heirs of the deceased tenant as well, as if they were and continue to be dependent on the same for their survival during the life time of the deceased tenant, as also after his death. The business in contemplation was probably a “family business” which was the livelihood of the entire family and on which the entire family was dependent for survival. Therefore, it was held that commercial tenancy must be protected. The Hon’ble Court did not consider a scenario where the legal heirs were not in the same business or were engaged in some other commercial activity separate from the deceased tenant. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed that the legislature should consider that the ground for eviction of statutory tenant available under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for bonafide need of landlord to be applied at parity for both residential and commercial premises, even though the Delhi Rent Control Act specified that this ground is available only for residential premises.
Prior to this, in 1972, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in H.C. Sharma’s case had held that there was a clear object behind the classification of the premises into “residential” and “non-residential”, and that there was a nexus between the basis of such classification and the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held that the classification/ discrimination did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it was created in view of the partition of the Country to provide availability of commercial space for rehabilitation of persons migrating to New Delhi in 1947 when there was a large influx of refugees.
Twenty-five years after this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra3 in 1997, while considering the reasonableness of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, held that “a statute which when enacted was justified may, with the passage of time, become arbitrary and unreasonable”, and that what may have been reasonable in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s can no longer be regarded as reasonable and the continuance of such a law itself became arbitrary.
In 2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its decision in the case of Satyawati Sharma v/s. Union of India 4, made a drastic change of approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the past 50 years much water has flown down the Ganges. It was noted that in the early 1950’s till 1990’s the Courts leaned heavily in favour of tenants. The reason being that they wanted to achieve the aim with which the rent control act was enacted. However, the said purpose had been long achieved. Those who had came from west Pakistan as refugees and even their next generations have settled down in different parts of the country. Many of them have also held high posts and have done well. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reasons which existed earlier no longer existed, and therefore, Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is discriminatory and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it is made applicable only to residential premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, struck down the said discrimination in the Delhi Rent Control Act and declared that the ground of bonafide need of the landlord available for seeking eviction of a tenant will apply to both residential as well as to commercial premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while noting that Section 14(1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, will have a bearing on the decision, did not render any findings in respect of the same, as the primary question which arose in that case was in relation to Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
This Judgment in the case of Satyawati Sharma has been followed and has stood the test of time. The Courts have given purposeful interpretation to say that bonafide need of a landlord is not to be confined by giving it a pedantic approach and limiting it to needs which are show to be pressing or compelling. Rather, it is the landlord who is the true judge of his need, as long as it is a bonafide need.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in the case of Saradamani Kandappan v/s. S. Rajalakshmi 5 again held that laws which may be reasonable and valid when made can become unreasonable and arbitrary with passage of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Anuj Garg v/s. Hotel Association of India 6 again held that a legislation which may have been upheld as valid, keeping in mind the circumstances existing at the time when it was so held, can be declared as invalid with change of times.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its Judgment in the case of Shobha Agarwal & Ors. v/s. Union of India 7 rejected the challenge to various provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In respect of Section 14(1)(d), it was held that the period of 06 months of absence is justified. There is no discussion in the reported judgment as to whether or not the said section is discriminatory on the ground that it does not apply to commercial premises also.
Section 14(1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has not been in occupation of the residence for a period of six months preceding the petition. Section 14(1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has been allotted or has acquired a vacant residence. Section 14(1) (hh) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has built a residence and 10 years have elapsed. Keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyawati Sharma, what, if any, can be the reason for this distinction to say that even if the tenant has not been using the commercial space, or has acquired / purchased another separate commercial space, yet he cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises, even though these are grounds under the Delhi Rent Control Act for seeking eviction of a statutory tenant from a residential premises. In the current time, is this not discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India?
What was the aim of Delhi Rent Control Act?
Was it the aim of the legislature, that it should continue ad infinitum, and that a commercial property once given on rent to a tenant and covered under the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, would in perpetuity be vested with the tenant, even if the tenant himself does not use it, or the tenant has acquired a place of his own, or the tenancy will continue even after the death of the tenant even if legal heirs of the tenant are or were not working with, or in the same business for which the tenant was using the commercial premises given on rent?
The rent control legislations of several other states do not create any distinction between residential and commercial premises/ tenancies in respect of non-use of the premises as a ground for eviction of tenant. In this regard, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 8 , Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 9, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 10, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 11, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 12, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 13, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 14 and Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 15 provide non-use of the premises as a ground for eviction in cases of both, residential and commercial tenancies/ premises. This classification between residential and commercial premises/ tenancies is unreasonable, unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Is the Delhi Rent Control Act, required in the current times?
Recently, many states in the country, including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir have enacted new tenancy laws, which are model laws and are progressive, inasmuch as they seek to create an equilibrium, and they do not create any special status in favour of the landlord, or of the tenant but they have been enacted with the intention to ensure that the terms of tenancy mutually agreed, are respected and are enforceable with the sanction of Law. Should Delhi also follow?
The author is an advocate practicing in Delhi
1 ILR (1973) I Delhi 90
2 1985(2) SCC 683
3 (1998) 2 SCC 1
4 2008(5) SCC 287
5 (2011) 12 SCC 18
6 (2008) 3 SCC 1
7 (2019) 256 DLT 210(DB)
8 Section 14(1)(v), Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987
9 Section 10(2)(v), Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
10 Section 13(2)(v), Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
11 Section 13(2)(v), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
12 Section 9(k), Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
13 Section 11(4)(v)¸Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
14 Section 27(2)(d), Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
15 Section 16(1)(n), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Why was the Delhi Rent Control Act made in the first place?
In 1939, World War -II broke out. This caused a shortage of housing.With an aim to protect the tenant’s rights, keeping in view the scarcity of residential space caused by World War -II, the New Delhi House Rent Control Order of 1939 was issued under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules. This was applicable only to tenancies for residential premises. The aim was to prevent arbitrary and unreasonable increase in rent and eviction of tenants by landlords, which the landlords might be tempted to do, to exploit the scarcity of residential space existing at that time. Subsequently, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 was applied except to the areas where New Delhi House Rent Control Order of 1939 was in force. Then, the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance no. 25 of 1944 was issued. In 1947, Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was enacted, and this was to be in force only for two years but it was extended for six years. It was by this Act in 1947 that, for the first time, restriction on eviction of tenants from commercial premises was included and since then the same has continued.
In 1947, when Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was enacted, the situation in the Country was un-precedented. The country was being partitioned. The events of that time are unimaginable today. Due to partition of the country there was a large influx of refugees who migrated to Delhi, being the capital. To provide respite to them, and to provide a sense of security in respect of premises taken by them on rent for their residence as well as for their business that the 1947 Act was made. The extra-ordinary and compellingcircumstances, led to the enactment of the Rent Control Laws for Delhi. The aim of the Laws was to restrict the rights of landlords from seeking eviction of tenants and increasing rents, arbitrarily and without any reason. While, eviction could be sought from residential premises for bonafide needs, there was no such provision for seeking eviction from commercial premises, the reason being that livelihood had to be protected at all costs to ensure and encourage rehabilitation of refugees who had settled in Delhi after partition. The Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was replaced by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which was repealed by the Delhi Rent Control Act in the year 1959 as noted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in H.C. Sharma v/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1, as the reason for rejecting the challenge to the Constitutional vires of the Delhi Rent Control Act provisions discriminating between residential and commercial premises.
Between the period 1960 to 1988, there were some amendments to the Delhi Rent Control Act. From then, nothing much has changed in the Delhi Rent Control Act except by judicial initiative undertaken by Courts, considering the changes brought by passage of time.
What happens on the Delhi Rent Control Act being applicable?
An owner/ landlord of a premises can give it on rent to a tenant under an agreement on mutually agreed terms. The mutuality ends here. It is only till here, that there is parity and equality. Once, the premises is let out on rent, the landlord loses control. When the tenancy to which the Delhi Rent Control Act applies is terminated by the landlord, a special right in favour of the tenant becomes operative. On termination, the tenant gets protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act and becomes a statutory tenant as provided under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. There is a bar, an embargo, on eviction of the tenant from the premises unless the stringent conditions for eviction, most of them contained in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, are first satisfied by the landlord who wants to evict a tenant.
The Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable to all premises in Delhi, except those which are specifically excluded under Section 3 thereof. The threshold of monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500/- for the Delhi Rent Control Act to stop applying, though seems attractive, is saddled with the limitation that the rent cannot increase by more than 10% on the last paid rent, and only once in a period of three years.
One interesting aspect is the difference or, if correctly stated, discrimination between residential and non-residential use of premises, on matters concerning eviction. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of “premises” under Section 2(i) includes both residential and commercial premises. Section 3 (c), which is a section of exclusion also does not create any distinction between residential or non-residential use of a premises, and provides that if the rent exceeds a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply. Section 14 also begins as follows “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely…”. It would appear from its reading that while it applies to “premises” as defined in Section 2(i) i.e. both residential and commercial, it actually does not. In Sections 14(1) (a) to (l), some grounds of eviction such as those contained in Sub-section (d), (e), (h), (hh) and (i) qualify the same as applying in respect of residential premises alone and not for commercial premises, while the others i.e. those contained in Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (j), (k) and (l) appear as applying to both residential and commercial premises. There is thus, a discrimination and a class within a class.
The interpretation of the limited grounds available for eviction of tenants under Sections 14 to 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act including the constitutional validity of the same have been subject matter of several litigations which have often landed up at the doors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
In the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of a tenant in respect of a “premises” is provided in Section 2(l). The Explanations contained in the said section, restrict the tenancy rights in favour of legal heirs of a deceased tenant. The restrictions were interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Devi Anand v/s. Union of India 2 to be applicable only to a tenant of a residential premises, and not for a tenant of a commercial premises.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment in the case of Gian Devi Anand considered the issue whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant in respect of commercial premises are entitled to the same protection against eviction, as the deceased tenant or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that (a) the limitations contained in Section 2(l) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied only for residential premises and not to commercial premises, and (b) the Delhi Rent Control Act had treated commercial properties differently from residential properties, by referring to Sections 14(1) (d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded by presuming that the deceased tenant and the legal heirs of such deceased tenant either are, or that they will carry on the same business, or are compelled to carry on the same business for their survival and livelihood. The said Judgment was rendered in the context that the same business is and will be the source of income for the legal heirs of the deceased tenant as well, as if they were and continue to be dependent on the same for their survival during the life time of the deceased tenant, as also after his death. The business in contemplation was probably a “family business” which was the livelihood of the entire family and on which the entire family was dependent for survival. Therefore, it was held that commercial tenancy must be protected. The Hon’ble Court did not consider a scenario where the legal heirs were not in the same business or were engaged in some other commercial activity separate from the deceased tenant. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed that the legislature should consider that the ground for eviction of statutory tenant available under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for bonafide need of landlord to be applied at parity for both residential and commercial premises, even though the Delhi Rent Control Act specified that this ground is available only for residential premises.
Prior to this, in 1972, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in H.C. Sharma’s case had held that there was a clear object behind the classification of the premises into “residential” and “non-residential”, and that there was a nexus between the basis of such classification and the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held that the classification/ discrimination did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it was created in view of the partition of the Country to provide availability of commercial space for rehabilitation of persons migrating to New Delhi in 1947 when there was a large influx of refugees.
Twenty-five years after this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra3 in 1997, while considering the reasonableness of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, held that “a statute which when enacted was justified may, with the passage of time, become arbitrary and unreasonable”, and that what may have been reasonable in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s can no longer be regarded as reasonable and the continuance of such a law itself became arbitrary.
In 2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its decision in the case of Satyawati Sharma v/s. Union of India 4, made a drastic change of approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the past 50 years much water has flown down the Ganges. It was noted that in the early 1950’s till 1990’s the Courts leaned heavily in favour of tenants. The reason being that they wanted to achieve the aim with which the rent control act was enacted. However, the said purpose had been long achieved. Those who had came from west Pakistan as refugees and even their next generations have settled down in different parts of the country. Many of them have also held high posts and have done well. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reasons which existed earlier no longer existed, and therefore, Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is discriminatory and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it is made applicable only to residential premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, struck down the said discrimination in the Delhi Rent Control Act and declared that the ground of bonafide need of the landlord available for seeking eviction of a tenant will apply to both residential as well as to commercial premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while noting that Section 14(1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, will have a bearing on the decision, did not render any findings in respect of the same, as the primary question which arose in that case was in relation to Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
This Judgment in the case of Satyawati Sharma has been followed and has stood the test of time. The Courts have given purposeful interpretation to say that bonafide need of a landlord is not to be confined by giving it a pedantic approach and limiting it to needs which are show to be pressing or compelling. Rather, it is the landlord who is the true judge of his need, as long as it is a bonafide need.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in the case of Saradamani Kandappan v/s. S. Rajalakshmi 5 again held that laws which may be reasonable and valid when made can become unreasonable and arbitrary with passage of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Anuj Garg v/s. Hotel Association of India 6 again held that a legislation which may have been upheld as valid, keeping in mind the circumstances existing at the time when it was so held, can be declared as invalid with change of times.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its Judgment in the case of Shobha Agarwal & Ors. v/s. Union of India 7 rejected the challenge to various provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In respect of Section 14(1)(d), it was held that the period of 06 months of absence is justified. There is no discussion in the reported judgment as to whether or not the said section is discriminatory on the ground that it does not apply to commercial premises also.
Section 14(1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has not been in occupation of the residence for a period of six months preceding the petition. Section 14(1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has been allotted or has acquired a vacant residence. Section 14(1) (hh) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has built a residence and 10 years have elapsed. Keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyawati Sharma, what, if any, can be the reason for this distinction to say that even if the tenant has not been using the commercial space, or has acquired / purchased another separate commercial space, yet he cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises, even though these are grounds under the Delhi Rent Control Act for seeking eviction of a statutory tenant from a residential premises. In the current time, is this not discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India?
What was the aim of Delhi Rent Control Act?
Was it the aim of the legislature, that it should continue ad infinitum, and that a commercial property once given on rent to a tenant and covered under the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, would in perpetuity be vested with the tenant, even if the tenant himself does not use it, or the tenant has acquired a place of his own, or the tenancy will continue even after the death of the tenant even if legal heirs of the tenant are or were not working with, or in the same business for which the tenant was using the commercial premises given on rent?
The rent control legislations of several other states do not create any distinction between residential and commercial premises/ tenancies in respect of non-use of the premises as a ground for eviction of tenant. In this regard, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 8 , Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 9, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 10, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 11, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 12, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 13, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 14 and Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 15 provide non-use of the premises as a ground for eviction in cases of both, residential and commercial tenancies/ premises. This classification between residential and commercial premises/ tenancies is unreasonable, unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Is the Delhi Rent Control Act, required in the current times?
Recently, many states in the country, including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir have enacted new tenancy laws, which are model laws and are progressive, inasmuch as they seek to create an equilibrium, and they do not create any special status in favour of the landlord, or of the tenant but they have been enacted with the intention to ensure that the terms of tenancy mutually agreed, are respected and are enforceable with the sanction of Law. Should Delhi also follow?
The author is an advocate practicing in Delhi
1 ILR (1973) I Delhi 90
2 1985(2) SCC 683
3 (1998) 2 SCC 1
4 2008(5) SCC 287
5 (2011) 12 SCC 18
6 (2008) 3 SCC 1
7 (2019) 256 DLT 210(DB)
8 Section 14(1)(v), Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987
9 Section 10(2)(v), Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
10 Section 13(2)(v), Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
11 Section 13(2)(v), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
12 Section 9(k), Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
13 Section 11(4)(v)¸Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
14 Section 27(2)(d), Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
15 Section 16(1)(n), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.