The most significant judgment of the Supreme court in regards to the Delhi Rent Control is in the case of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. V. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287. In the said of judgment the Supreme court held that section 14 (1) (e) of the Act is violative of the equality clause in Article 14 of constitution, insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purpose when the same are the premises let for residential and non-residential purpose when the same are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation of himself or a member of his family. In view of the this the court felt that ends of justice will be met by striking down the discriminatory portion of section 14 (1) (e). it directed that after striking down the discriminatory part of the clause the clause would 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 land lord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
The court further directed that the explanation to section 14 (1) (e) would thus be treated as redundant.
As a consequences of the above judgment large number of landlord have been able to obtain possession of their rented premises for their own use on the ground of bonafide need.
This is without doubt that the Delhi Rent Control Act in the present form ia a half baked legislation that does not meet the requirements of the day. Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Act have been struck down as unconstitutional. There is no machinery for providing relief to the landlord who had let out premises at very low rents many years so to demand the revision of rent except the provision for a 10 % increase after every 3 years after the introduction of section 6A W.E.F 1st December 1988 by serving the appropriate notice. This provides no real relief in the cases where the rent was paltry, say Rs,. 50 per month fixed in 1950 or 1960’s with the times, the court can only interpret the provision as they exist. But with Satyawati judgment, the Courts have been able to provide relief to a limited number of landlords by ascertaining their Bonafide needs.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us