LANDLORDS OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES IN DELHI CAN EVICT TENANTS ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL NEED

K. N. Popli, Advocate
knpopli@sify.com

As per the judgment delivered on 16-4-2008 in the matter of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs . v. Union of India and another, 2008 (102) DRJ 393 (SC) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, a landlord having properties in the Union Territory of Delhi is permitted to evict his tenant inducted for commercial purposes if he is the owner of the tenanted premises and requires bona fide for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The Supreme Court partly struck down the discriminatory portion of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act “let for residential purposes……..   as  a residence…….. and residential”.

Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides, “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.

Explanation . – For the purpose of this clause, “premises let for residential purposes” include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;”

Now the remaining part of the said section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act may be read as under:

“that 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.”

Every citizen of an urban area is somehow directly or indirectly affected by this law of rent control, which is provincial in nature and differs from State to State. Earlier Delhi had no Rent Control Act of its own. Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was extended to Delhi and it remained applicable till the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was enacted. The relations between landlords and tenants in the National Capital Territory of Delhi are presently governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended up-to-date. This Act came into force on the 9th February, 1959. It was amended thereafter in 1960, 1963, 1976, 1984 and 1988. But in spite of this the Delhities never felt satisfied with the provisions of the Act and on several times representations were made both by the landlords and tenants – individually as well as through the associations of landlords and tenants and even by public interest institutions to bring forth proper and more comprehensive legislation which may be more suitable both to landlords and tenants alike. In the light of representations and other developments the Delhi Rent Bill, 1994 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 26 th August, 1994 and it was passed by it on 29th May, 1995. In the said proposed Delhi Rent Act, a ground for vacation of commercial tenancies on bona fide requirement was added, but this Bill remained only on papers. However, it is an admitted fact that the rent control legislations are heavily loaded in favour of the tenants treating them as weaker sections of the society requiring legislative protection against exploitation and unscrupulous devices of greedy landlords. The legislative intent has to be respected by the courts while interpreting the laws. But it is being uncharitable to legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants, go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The legislature is fair to the tenants and to the landlords - both. The courts have to adopt a reasonable and balanced approach while interpreting rent control legislations starting with an assumption that an equal treatment has been meted out to both the sections of the society. In spite of the overall balance tilting in favour of the tenants, while interpreting such of the provisions as take care of the interest of the landlords the court should not hesitate in leaning in favour of the landlords. Such provisions are engrafted in rent control legislations to take care of those situations where the landlords too are weak and feeble and feel humble.

Considering all the above aspects and various problems being faced by the landlords having properties in the Union Territory of Delhi, the Apex Court observed that “rack renting and shortage of accommodation, it is in consonance with the recognition of the right of both the landlords and tenants that a harmony is sought to be struck whereby the bona fide requirements of the landlords and tenants in the expanding explosion of need and population and shortage of accommodation are sought to be harmonized and the conditions imposed to evict a tenant are that the landlord must have bona fide need”, and as such partly struck down section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The Court held that section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is violative of 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 tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only. As a sequel to the above, the explanation appearing below section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act will have to be treated as redundant.