Grounds of Eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides for various grounds available to a landlord for evicting a tenant

The landlord cannot evict any tenant without any valid reason. The circumstances under which a tenant can be evicted are mentioned below, but in those cases also the landlord has to make an application to the Controller for the recovery of the possession on the below mentioned grounds:-

Section 14 (1) (a)

The tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him.        
 

Section 14 (1) (b)

Without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing, the tenant has sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises.

 

Section 14 (1) (c)

That the tenant has used the premises for purpose other than that for which they were let-

1. If the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; or
2. If the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent;

 

Section 14 (1) (d) The premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof.

 

Section 14 (1) (e) 
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.

Section 14 (1) (f)  
The premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. 

Section 14 (1) (g)  
The premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.

Section 14 (1) (hh)

That the tenant has, after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, built a residence and ten years have elapsed there-after;

 

Section 14 (1) (i)   

The premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased,  to be in such service or employment.

 

Section 14 (1) (j)

That the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises;

 

Section 14 (1) (k)

That the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situated.

 

Section 14 (1) (l)

The landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme and that such building work cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.

In Freddy Fernandes v. P. L. Mehra, 1973 R.C.R. 53(2), the case-law on the meaning of the expression bona fide as used in clause (e) was reviewed and it was held that the bona fides of the claim could be subjective only insofar as the landlord has the right to choose between alternative accommodations according to his convenience. If one of them is more convenient to him than the other, he is entitled to choose the one which is more convenient. But the extent of his need cannot be left to his fancy. It has to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In that sense the need has to be objectively judged.

In Ram Narain v. Lakshmi Dass Kundra, AIR 1971 Delhi 268 the landlord lived on the first floor and wanted the additional accommodation from the tenant on the first floor. The ground floor was used for commercial purposes. The landlord was not bound to convert the accommodation on ground floor into residential purpose but was justified in wanting the residential accommodation on the first floor adjoining his own accommodation for a residence. A  landlord cannot be precluded from claming back possession of a portion of his property merely because he has lived uncomfortably in the past and has decided to now live more comfortably, leading to the institution of a petition for eviction by him on the ground of personal requirement.

In Madan Lal vs Hema Wati, ILR 1970 Delhi 519 merely because the wife of the landlord is earning her independent living, and, therefore, is not dependent on him cannot mean that while considering the needs of the landlord the needs of his wife have to be ignored. Likewise, the needs of the adult independent son, who normally is accustomed to live with his father, cannot be ignored, when considering the needs of the father. The words “for himself” have to be interpreted to mean “for himself as living along with his family members, with whom he is normally accustomed to live.” This interpretation has to be adopted when there is nothing to cast any doubt on the bona fides of the landlord, when he makes such a claim. The phrase “or for any member of his family dependent on him”, occurring in the clause is designed to meet an altogether different objective. If the landlord himself is not to reside in the premises, as for instance, when he lives outside Delhi, he still is entitled to claim ejectment of his tenant, if the premises are required “for any member of his family dependent on him” or “for whose benefit the premises are held”.

In V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745, a seven judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, held that, In order to get a decree for eviction against the tenant, the notice is not necessary. The tenant continues to be a tenant even thereafter, that post the serving of the eviction notice. The landlord is under a duty to make out a case from the grounds mentioned under the concerned rent control legislation, and it shall be sufficient to have the eviction thereafter.

In the case of Priya Bala Ghosh v. B.L. Singhania, AIR 1992 SC 639, it was held that rent can be tendered by money order, and in case if the money order is sent within time but it reaches late to the landlord, then, it would be deemed as a valid tender.

The above are all the grounds under which the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant by filing a petition before the Court of Rent Controller of the area in which the rented premises are situated.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us