JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

LAND LAWS

Control of Eviction of Tenant in the

light of Slum Area (Improvement
and Clearance) Act 1956
Session: 2017-2018

Submitted to: Submitted By:

Dr. Kahkashan Danyal Qazi Ammar Alam

Professor B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

IX-Semester

0|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Kahkashan Y. Danyal, for being a guiding force

throughout the course of this submission and being instrumental in the

successful completion of this project report without which my efforts would

have been in vain.

Regards

Qazi Ammar Alam

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3
THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................. 3
THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 ........................................ 4
OBJECT & PURPOSE OF THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT,
1956 ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
DESCRIPTION OF SLUM ................................................................................................................ 7
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 .................................................................................................. 9
CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANTS ...................................................................................... 9
Section 14(1) (a) ................................................................................................................................. 9
Section 14(1) (b) ................................................................................................................................. 9
Section 14(1) (c) ............................................................................................................................... 10
Section 14(1) (d) ............................................................................................................................... 10
Section 14(1) (e) ............................................................................................................................... 11
THE OLD AGE .................................................................................................................................... 12
START NEW BUSINESS/NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED............................................................... 12
Section 14(1) (f) ................................................................................................................................ 13
Section 14(1) (g) ............................................................................................................................... 13
Section 14(1) (h) ............................................................................................................................... 13
Section 14(1) (i) ................................................................................................................................ 14
Section 14(1) (j) ................................................................................................................................ 14
Section 14(1) (k) ............................................................................................................................... 15
SUMMARY PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................. 16
Object ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Procedure .......................................................................................................................................... 16

2|Page
 INTRODUCTION

According to the Murphys Law of Economic Policy states that Economists have the least
influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most
influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.1 While most
economists agree that rent controls are bad, nothing of note has been done towards
deregulating rents, especially in India. Also, the sheer diversity of rent control laws existing
in various states and countries, coupled with phenomenal economic diversity makes it very
difficult to generalize the argument across borders, and thus makes the task of policy makers
that much more difficult.

THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first rent control measure in Delhi came after the outbreak of the Second World War in
1939, under the Defense of India Rules. This was restricted to New Delhi and the Notified
Area, Civil Station. In 1942, the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941
were made applicable to the remaining areas of Delhi. It was soon realized that the provision
of the Punjab Act were insufficient for a city like Delhi and thus, it was supplemented by
another Order under the Defense of India Rules in 1944. After the war, another
comprehensive legislation was passed for all parts of Delhi by the name of The Delhi and
Ajmer Marwara Rent Control Act, 1947. In 1952, it was repealed by The Delhi and Ajmer
Rent Control Act, which substituted it and ceased the application of rent Acts of other states
to certain parts of Delhi.

Another attempt was made in 1958 to plug certain loopholes of the 1952 act. In the same
year, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act was passed which sought to protect
the interest of the slum dwellers. The next comprehensive enactment on rent control in Delhi
was passed in 1958 and came into force on February 9, 1959. This is the current legislation of
rent control in Delhi and it extends to the areas included within the New Delhi Municipal
Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board, together with the urban areas of the Municipal
Corporation of the Urban Areas in Delhi.

1
A Rent Affair, Paul Krugman, The Unofficial Paul Krugman<http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html>

3|Page
First, lets discuss about The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 and then
we will move forward towards the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956

An Act no. 96 of the year 1956, being The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
1956, a Central Government legislation, was assented on 28th December, 1956 by the
President of India. The said Act was enacted with the object to improve and clear the slum
areas in particular Union Territories and also to protect the tenants against eviction in such
slum areas. Honble Judiciary many times explained the purposed of this Act in their
observations in the related matters. A full bench of Honble High Court of Delhi, observed in
the case of Bardu Ram v. Ram Chander2, that the very important object of this Act is to
enable the poor, who do not have any place to go to and if he will be evicted to remain in his
dwellings until provision is made from a better live for him elsewhere. In the view of Honble
Apex Court, in the case of Lal Chand (dead) by L.Rs and Ors.v. RadhaKishan3, the Act was
enacted for protecting tenants in slum areas from eviction, unless an alternative
accommodation is available to them. The extension of the provisions thereof is provided to
the concerned Union territories; however the Union Territories of the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands and the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands are exempted. To bring into force
the provisions of this Act, the Central Government is empowered under this Act. Similarly, a
separate date of commencement for each Union Territory could be provided, like, for Union
Territory of Delhi, the Act brought into force on 8th February, 1957.

The important provisions relating to the purpose of the Act are given under second Chapter
thereof. Section 3 is dealing with the declaration of any area which upon the report of
concerned officer of on information, the competent authority satisfied that, any building in
such area is not fit for human residence by the reasons mentioned in the provision, as slum
area.

Further, the under the next chapter contained in it, the Act provides for powers to the
Competent authority for the purpose of requiring the improvement of such slum area,
buildings which are found unfit for human residence. In the process of such improvement, the
competent authority is required to serve a notice to the owners of such buildings, under which

2
AIR 1972 Del. 34 (FB).
3
AIR 1977 SC 789.

4|Page
such owners will be required to conduct improvement within the period of 30 days from the
date of such notice. And in case of failure of the Owner thereof, to perform the work required
under the Notice, then the authority to perform the work and the expenses will be recovered
from such Owner as arrears of land revenue. The Competent authority is also empowered to
demolish such buildings which are found unfit for the human habitation and is of such
conditions which cannot be made fit for such purpose.

Moreover, the Act further makes provisions for clearance of the slum and conduct re-
development thereof, under its chapter-IV. Such clearance of the slum can be made under
these provisions by removing or demolishing every buildings in the slum areas on which the
competent authority is satisfied that the same should be removed. In the process of such
clearance of slum area, the first step which the competent authority is required to take is to
declare his intention in the notification, thereafter to make an order in this relation. Notably,
both this, notification and order at their stages should be first submitted to the Administrator
thereof. On confirmation of the order by the Administrator the owners of buildings are
required to demolish the same within 6 weeks or otherwise within the period so specified
thereof. And similar to above, in case of such owners failure to perform demolition, the
competent authority to perform the said demolition and recover the expenses from such
owners, as arrears of land revenue. On such demolition, the competent authority is
empowered to make plan for developing the cleared land by the Owners thereof. Similarly,
for such improvement of slum area, any adjoining or surrounding land is required as
necessary for the purpose, and then the Central Government can acquire the land on payment
of compensation to the owners thereof.

The Act under its fourth Chapter makes very important provisions as to protection offered to
the Tenant in the slum areas against eviction. The section 19 says that there should be
previous permission of the competent authority even after having decree or order of eviction.
The Competent authority is required to make an enquiry and hear the tenant thereof, on any
application made for such eviction. On rejection of permission or otherwise, if any party
thereof feels aggrieved can prefer appeal before the Administrator against the order of the
Competent authority. The eviction of tenants from government building is exempted to cover
under the provisions of this Chapter.

Moreover, the provisions relating to power to enter, inspection, braking, etc. of such areas
and its legality are given under chapter dealing with miscellaneous provision under this Act.

5|Page
Certain important provisions among them, are including the power of the Competent
authority to direct persons carrying on any dangerous or offensive trade in the area of slum by
its order. Further, the offences under this Act have been defined under section 32. It is given
that, any person violates the order, notice, etc. under this Act, or acts otherwise which under
this Act leads to an offence as given under the said provision, should be liable to punishment.
There are different punishments for different offences and the maximum punishment is an
imprisonment of 3 months and fine as mentioned. The Court can only proceeds with the
prosecution, when there is prior sanction of the competent authority. The Competent
authority can delegate its powers in certain circumstances to other officers. And the actions of
such competent authority or of any officer taken in good faith and also in pursuance of this
Act, should not be subjected to any legal implication or sanction. These authorities are treated
as public servants. Finally, the Central Government is having authority to make rules under
this Act, on the matters given under the provision of section 39 of the Act, in particular for
carrying on the object and purpose of the Act. Likewise, the Government has framed The
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Rule, 1956.

OBJECT & PURPOSE OF THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND

CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a recent decision in Virender Singh v. State
Bank of India4 has recapitulated the importance and object of the Slum Clearance Act in
matters where the landlord seeks to evict tenants under the relevant rent control legislation.
The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced herein below;

12. The object and purpose of a Rent Control Legislation was highlighted by the Supreme
Court in the decision reported as Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar5. In para 23 it was
observed:-

The Rent Acts which are indeed in the nature of social welfare legislation are
intended to protect tenants against harassment and exploitation by landlords,
safeguarding at the same time the legitimate interest of the landlords. The Rent Acts
seek to preserve social harmony and promote social justice by safeguarding the
interests of the tenants mainly and at the same time protecting the legitimate interests

4
Decided on 12 December 2011.
5
1985 (2) SCC 683.

6|Page
 of the landlords. Though the purpose of the various Rent Acts appear to be the same,
namely, to promote social justice by affording protection to tenants against undue
harassment and exploitation by landlords, providing at the same time for adequate
safeguards of the legitimate interests of the landlords, the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean
more in favour of the tenants for whose benefit the Rent Acts are essentially passed.

13. In the context of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the word "Tenant is defined in clause
(ii) of Section 2(l) of the Act, as follows:

2 (l) tenant means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of
any premises is, or, but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes . . .

(ii) Any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy . . .

14. It is apparent that the definition of "tenant in the Delhi Rent Control Act incorporates the
concept of a statutory tenant. But since the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable to
tenancies where the monthly rent payable is in excess of Rs. 3,500/-, the question of a tenant
whose tenancy has expired by efflux of time or has been otherwise validly determined as per
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 becoming a statutory tenant does not arise.

15. The essential object of the Slum Act is entirely different. It was noted by a Full Bench of
this Court in the decision reported as Bardu Ram v. Ram Chander6. It was observed:-

An essential object of the Slum Areas Act is to enable the poor, who have no other
place to go to and who, if they were evicted to remain in their dwellings until
provision is made from a better live for them elsewhere..

DESCRIPTION OF SLUM

A slum is a heavily populated urban informal settlement characterized by substandard

housing and squalor.7 While slums differ in size and other characteristics from country to
country, most lack reliable sanitation services, supply of clean water, reliable electricity,
timely law enforcement and other basic services. Slum residences vary from shanty houses to

6
AIR 1972 Del 34 (FB).
7
What are slums and why do they exist?UN-Habitat, Kenya (April 2007).

7|Page
professionally-built dwellings that because of poor-quality design or construction have
deteriorated into slums.8

Under this act slum is defined as an area unfit for human habitation because of dilapidated
buildings, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of buildings, narrowness or faulty
arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities or any other
combination of these factors.

Dilapidated building can be assessed on its basis of repair, stability, freedom from damp,
natural light & air, water supply, drainage & sanitary conveniences.9

The case of Lakshmi Chand Khemani v. Kuaram Devi in support of his submission that the
word "tenant" must bear the same meaning in the Slum Clearance Act as in the Delhi Rent
Control Act.

If a landlord obtains an eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting in respect of a premises

in slum area without obtaining permission under section 19, then the eviction order is a
nullity.10

Where permission is sought both under section 19(4) (a) and 19 (4)(b) of Act, competent
authority should consider both.11

Permission under section 19(1) (a) cannot be granted in case tenant is not in a position to
arrange alternative accommodation within his means, if evicted.12

A sub-tenant is not a tenant under the Act and hence to evict him owner of the premises need
not seek permission under 19.13

8
UN-HABITAT 2007 Press Release on its report, "The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements
2003".
9
Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act, Posted on June 30, 2015 (http://planningtank.com/acts/slum
areas-improvement-and-clearance-act)
10
Albein Plywood v. JanakKapur1993 RLR (N) 62
11
Joginder Singh v. K.C. Johorey 44(1991) DLT 658
12
Noor Ahmed v. Rehmeti Bi 42 (1990) DLT (SN) 27
13
Kailash Chand v. GanpatRai 1989 RLR 274;38 (1989) DLT 318

8|Page
 DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958

CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANTS

Section 14 lays down notwithstanding anything to the contrary to any law or contract, no
order of eviction can be passed except on the grounds mentioned under this Section. These
words give the primacy to rent control law against other laws and the contract itself. A word
only has been used in Section 14 which makes these grounds as exhaustive but, no doubt, a
landlord can have one or more grounds at the same time to get an eviction. Section 14 puts
various riders before passing the orders of eviction. In simple words, an eviction order shall
follow only if there are grounds mentioned under the Act. If the case is not covered under any
of the grounds, no order of eviction shall follow.

SECTION 14(1) (A)

The law does not provide the form of notice or its content, it is just that it must come from a
proper quarter i.e. the landlord or his counsel.

In Raghunath v. Anant Narayan14, apex court held that mere fact that the amount given in
the notice was incorrect was no ground for holding that the notice was bad and the suit was
not maintainable. Since the amount due is within the special knowledge of the tenant, it does
not make such difference and the tenant is under a duty to pay or deposit as per Section 27 of
the General Clauses Act.

SECTION 14(1) (B)

The sub-letting is not an act forbidden or prohibited by law. The tenant may sub-let the
premises depending upon the contract between him and the landlord. It is only the absence of
writing of the consent of landlord which makes sub-letting a ground for eviction. The
expression sub-let, assigned or parted with possession, no doubt, are different concepts but
in all, there is a transfer of legal possession of the premises to the persons other than the
tenants.

14
1966 SC

9|Page
In Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjit Singh15, it was held that the initial burden of sub-
letting is on the landlord but once it is discharged, the onus shifts on the tenant.

In the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Anguri Devi16, it was held that merely by the presence of
third party the court cannot assume sub-tenancy.

A three-judge Bench, in the case of Krishnawati v. Hansraj17, has laid down that if a wife
allows her husband to continue the business from the premises then it would amount to sub-
letting.

In Parvinder Singh v. RenuGautam18, it was held that merely because a tenant has entered
into a partnership he cannot be held to sub-let if the use and the control is still with the tenant
but if it is apparent that the tenancy has been divided or the possession has been distributed, it
would amount to sub-letting.

SECTION 14(1) (C)

By this Section there is an embargo in a sense on a tenant no to use the premises for any other
purpose otherwise than for which he was authorised under the agreement. In this Section,
there is a change of user from residential to commercial or vice-versa. The change of the user
should also be of such a nature that is causing a public nuisance or damages the property or is
detrimental to the landlord.

In Pushpa Devi v. Om Prakash, it was laid down that for having eviction under Section
14(1)(c) a notice should also be given to the tenant requiring him to stop the misuser and the
period of one month should have elapsed from the notice.

SECTION 14(1) (D)

This clause is attracted if the premises are let-out for residential purpose only and the period
of 6 months should be a continuous period.

In KapilBhargav v. S.C. Aggarwal19, the court held that if the sub-tenant is in possession it
would not mean that the tenant is in possession.

15
AIR 1968 SC 933.
16
AIR 1984 SC 1447.
17
AIR 1974 SC 280.
18
(2004) 4 SCC 794.
19
AIR 2001 SC 3334.

10 | P a g e
In BaldevSahayBangia v. R.C. Bhasin20, the court defined and laid down the term family
with a wider meaning. It has included not only the head of the family but also all the
members, the descendants and the ascendants from a common ancestor who are living
together in the same house.

SECTION 14(1)(E)

The fiction and the mischief of this Section has undergone drastic changes in the recent past.
The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of
India &Anr.21has shown that how a judicial over-reach could and should take place, so as to
bring the law in conformity with the demand of the society. It is also a prime example that
sometimes the judiciary should bring out the legislative aspect if the legislators have turned a
complete blind eye due to vote-bank politics.

In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India &Anr.22, it was held that Section
14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act is violative of the 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 the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes
only.

The Supreme Court further opined that Ends of justice will be met by striking down the
discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e) so that the remaining part thereof may read as
under:

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.

In the recent judgment of Delhi High Court in Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan Singh and
Anr.23, Honble Justice Manmohan Singh while adjudicating issue pertaining to bonafide
requirement of premises under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 opined that,

20
AIR 1982 SC 1091.
21
2008 (5) SCC 287.
22
Ibid.
23
Judgment dated 02.01.2014.

11 | P a g e
it is not permissible for the tenant to raise such issues pertaining to the age of the landlord,
his experience and financial status. These issues are not much relevant for the purpose of
deciding the application for leave to defend in the eviction petition if it is established prima
facie that the requirement of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and no triable issues are
raised by the tenant.

Honble Justice referred to case laws under claimed circumstances like old age, start of new
business/ no experiences required, financial status of the landlord not relevant and bonafide
requirement.

It would be worth reproducing the cases referred in this category as timeless ratio.

THE OLD AGE

In Dev Raj Bajaj v. R.K. Khanna24, it was observed that Where a landlord or his wife were
unable to climb the stairs due to old age ailments and wanted to shift to the ground floor, such
a need of the landlord was bonafide. A landlord can ask for ground floor for his convenience
and comfort of his health.

In KuldipMahajan v. Krishna Uppal and Ors.25, this Court has observed that Where
landlady filed a petition on the ground of bona fide requirement as she and her husband are of
old age and landladys intention was to shift residence for better medical treatment of her
husband, no malafide was attributed and it was held that a period afflicted by Arthritis would
not find it convenient to reside on first floor when ground floor is also owned by her.

START NEW BUSINESS/NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED

In Balwant Singh Chowdhary&Anr.v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.26, it was held

that It is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to
set up, if the landlord wanted the premises for business purposes.

In GurcharanLal Kumar v. SrimatiSatyawati&Ors.27, it was observed that Merely because

the exact nature of business has not been described would not take away their bonafide need

24
1996 RLR 125.
25
97 (2002) DLT 619.
26
2004 (1) RCR 487.

12 | P a g e
to carry out a business (when admittedly both the sons are dependent upon petitioner for this
need). It was observed that if the business need is not disclosed this would not wipe away the
bonafide need of the landlord as has been pressed under Section 14(1)(e) of the
DRCA,1958.

SECTION 14(1) (F)

Under this clause the necessity of making repairs of the premises is made a ground of
eviction, if the same cannot be carried out without the vacation of the tenant from the
premises. The reason for repairs is that the building has become unsafe or unfit for human
habitation. The Act only considers the public interest, safety and well-being of the persons
and not the financial or commercial aspects involved in the repairs or reconstruction of the
building as provided in some of the Rent Control Acts.

To invoke this Section, the landlord must prove that:

1. The premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

2. He bonafide requires the same for carrying out repairs.
3. Such repairs cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.

SECTION 14(1) (G)

It provides that the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the demised premises if it is
proved that the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for the purposes of building or
re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations which cannot be carried
out without the premises being vacated. Thus, two requirements of this Section are:

1. The premises are required bonafide by the landlord for the purposes of building or re-
building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations.
2. The court must be satisfied that the specified work cannot be carried out without the
premises being vacated.

SECTION 14(1) (H)

The policy intended under this Section was that the landlords should also have their
legitimate interests safeguarded. When the tenant is no more the vulnerable class or the
person in need, then he should not get the benefit under the Act. In the case of Ganpat Ram

27
RC. Rev. No. 285/2012 and C.M. No.11263/2012 dated 25th April, 2013

13 | P a g e
v. Gayatri Devi28 court held that the object of this clause is to protect or restrict the statutory
protection with regard to only one tenancy. If the tenant acquires another accommodation, he
uses his protection under the Act.

The limitation period for Section 14(1)(h)is 12 years from the day of knowledge that the
tenant has acquired an alternative accommodation.

SECTION 14(1) (I)

Generally, there are 2 kinds of tenancies:

i. Ordinary tenancy
ii. Service tenancy

Service tenancy means that the tenant is occupying the premises because of the fact that he is
in service or employment of the landlord. The essential ingredients of this Section are:

1. A lessor-lessee relationship.
2. Lessee in service of the lessor.
3. Cessation of service.

In the case of Madhubala v. Shri Ram Scientific & Industrial Research Foundation29, it
was held that Controller only has to see whether the service of the employee has been validly
terminated or not. He might not wait for the final orders if the Labour Court.

SECTION 14(1) (J)

This Section talks about that if a tenant has caused or permitted to cause substantial damage
or impairment, then he is liable to be evicted from the premises. Here the damage may be by
the tenant himself or by any third party and the tenant has not stopped the third party. The
words materially or impairment are very important. It means the diminishing of the
quality or strength of the premises or the construction which is of such a nature that decreases
the value or utility of the building.

Also in the case ofSurajPrakash Chopra v. BaijNathDhawan30, following points have been
laid down:

28
AIR 1997 SC 2016.
29
98 (2002) DLT 399.
30
103 (2003) DLT 645.

14 | P a g e
 i. The onus to prove the substantial damage is on the landlord.
ii. He has to prove that the construction was made by the tenant or any other person and
tenant has not stopped the person.
iii. Landlord has to prove by cogent evidence that the damage is substantial and for this
an expert can also be examined.
iv. Every construction generally does not impair the utility.
v. The impairment has to be seen from the point of landlord and not the tenant.

SECTION 14(1) (K)

While creating leases, certain authorities like government, DDA, or MCD imposes certain
conditions upon the person who has been allotted the premises. Legislature has enacted this
Section to curb the unauthorised use of this premise and also to enable the superior lessor to
take back the leased land.

15 | P a g e
 SUMMARY PROCEDURE

The Legislature with the intent to provide quick and simple procedure for deciding the
petitions on the ground of bonafide requirement and also under Sections 14A, 14B, 14C or
14D introduced Section 25B by way of 1976 Amendment.

OBJECT

It was hoped that with the enactment of Section 25B frivolous defences would not be raised
and the landlords who were genuinely in need of premises for their own need would be able
to recover possession as expeditiously as possible.

PROCEDURE

Section 25B(1) provides that the procedure specified in this section are to be followed in
eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(e), 14A, 14B, 14C or 14D.

Section 25B (2) provides that the Controller to issue summons in the form specified in Third
Schedule.

Section 25B(3)(a) provided for service of summons and lays down that the tenant can be
saved summons by registered post and by publication in newspaper in addition to and
simultaneously with the ordinary mode of services.

Section 25B (3)(b) (Deemed services) provides as to that when an acknowledgment

purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or an
endorsement by the postal employee is received that the tenant or his agent has refused to
receive summons, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons.

Section 25B (4) provides as to that a tenant cannot contest unless he files an affidavit which
discloses defence within 15 days of service of summons. In default of his appearance in
pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in
the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant
shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.

Section 25B(5) provides that if the affidavit by tenant discloses defence, then the Controller
shall give to the tenant leave to defend contest the application on the ground specified in
Section 14(1) or Section 14A.

16 | P a g e
Section 25B (6) says that hearing shall commence as early as possible.

Section 25B (7) mandates Controller to adopt and follow the practice and procedure of Small
Causes Court.

As per Section 25B (8) there is no provision of appeal. However, High Court has the power
of revision.

Under Section 25B (9) Rent Controller has the power of review.

In the case of Precision Steel Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan31, the SC held that Section 25B
is narrower than Order 37, CPC and this must be liberally construed and properly applied in
the prescribed manners. SC made the following observations:

1. On combined reading of Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B(1) and (4), it emerges that
unless tenant obtains the leave to defend, he is deemed to have admitted the averment
made by landlord.
2. After filing of affidavit by tenant, the jurisdiction of Controller is confined to
considering affidavit of tenant and rejoinder affidavit of landlord, if any.
3. If affidavit of tenant disclosed any defence, it is obligatory upon the Controller to
grant leave whether it is proved later or not, is immaterial. The stages of proof are yet
to come.
4. This is a harsh procedure and weighed against the tenant.

Section 25B is mandatory and if no application for leave to defend is filed it is obligatory for
the Rent Controller to accept the statements made by the owner landlord and order eviction.

31
AIR 1982 SC 1518.

17 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
In addition to the protection given to the tenant under ordinary law against eviction by
landlord under sectio106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Rent Control legislation
has laid further that restriction on the right of the landlord to evict the tenant by the way of
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which is apparent from section 14(1) of the said Rent Control
Act. It starts with the non-substantic clause and puts its par on eviction despite lease having
being determined. However, that bar is lifted to some extent by the proviso section 14(1) that
provides that the order for recovery of possession of premises may be procured from the
controller on the application made to him in the prescribed manner on any of the grounds
mentioned therein. It is submitted that a tenant can be evicted from the premises only on the
grounds mentioned in various clauses of the proviso tp section 14(1), 14A, 14B, 14D. These
rights and remedies of the landlords for the eviction of the tenant from demise premises are
further curtailed by the slum improvement act (in short act) because of section 19, which says
that if the premises in question is situated in a slum area, as declared under section 3 of the
Act, no suit of proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act shall be executed
unless and until permission in this regard is sought from the competent authority under
section 19(4) of the act. Before granting or refusing permission, in this regard the competent
authority shall take into account the following factors:

1) Whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to
him if he were evicted;
2) Whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the sum areas.

These factors are alternative and mandatory.

18 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES/REPORTS

1. DevSatvik, Rent Control Laws in India A Critical Analysis, NIUA WP 06-04

2. Ojha, Shraddha, Protection against eviction and fixation of fair rent, available at :
http://legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=510
3. PRS Legislative Research. (2012)The land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Bill, 2011 Accessed on 16th August 2012 at http://
www.prsindia.org/bulltrack/theland-acquisition-rehabilitation-and-resettlement-bill-
2011-1978.
4. India Infrastructure Report 2009.
5. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Government of India.

BOOKS

1. Madabhushi Sridhar, Unfair rent Uncontrolable Control, (Hyderabad: Asia Law

House) 2009
2. V.P. Sarthi, Law of Transfer of Property, (Lucknow: Eastern Book Co.) 2005

19 | P a g e
3. Dhru, Kelly A (2010). Acquisition of land for development projects in India: The
Road Ahead. Research Foundation for Governance in India.
4. Morris, Sebastian and Pandey, Ajay, (2007). Towards Reform of Land Acquisition
Framework in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 2 June, Vol 42, No. 22.
5. Saxena, K. B. (2011). Rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced persons. Chapter
three in Development Induced Displacement, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in
India. Routledge Contemporary South Asia.
6. Vaswani, K., V. Dhagamwar, and E. Thukral. (1997): The Land Acquisition Act
and You, Multiple Action Research Group (MARG), Delhi.

ONLINE ARTICLES/E-JOURNALS/ WEBSITES

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#box%201
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#box%201
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html
www.arts.cornell.edu/econ/cae/RentControl.PD

20 | P a g e