Note on Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act

Safeguards to Tenant

Under S. 14(1) (c)

# Purpose for letting (i) residence, (ii) commercial, or (iii) any other purpose -> must be proved by landlord [I.D.Malik v Duli Chand 1968 RCJ 187]

#Initial Purpose to run grocery shop, later running book-shop – > no ground for eviction [Rattan Lal v Asha Rani JT 1988 (4) SC 83]

#Tenant started using residential house for commercial purposes, selling and assembling radios. Court held that landlady could not evict tenant because under S. 14(5), no misuse of house, no damage to premises, no public nuisance created and nothing detrimental to interests of landlady [Pushpa Devi v Om Prakash S.A.O No. 219 of 1973, dt. 4-5-1979]

Under S. 14(1) (d)

#3 essentials to be proved by landlord – > (i) that the premises were let out for use as a residence, (ii) that the tenant after having taken the premises has ceased to reside, and (iii) that apart from the tenant no member of his family also has been residing for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of application. S. 2 (1) (iii) of the Act clearly mentions persons who could be regarded as tenant even if the main tenant dies. Thus, in this case, even if the main tenant had left for Canada, his mother, brother and sister were living as tenants. No grounds for eviction [Baldev S. Bangia v R.C. Bhasin AIR 1982 SC 1091]

#If tenant or any of his family member resides in the premises, even for a day, then he cannot be evicted. [The Hindustan Times Ltd. v J.N. Sethi   S.A.O No. 96 of 1969]

Under S. 14 (1) (e)

#In order to assess the bona fide need of the landlord for more accommodation, the Court has to keep in its view the social status of the landlord in question and his social status shall not go down by the mere fact that he has retired from the service. [K.B. Mathur v Sardar Bhagwant Singh, 1988 (2) RCJ 161]

#Using premises for commercial purposes with consent of previous owner. No ground for eviction. [Amar Dass Juneja v Tej Bhan Dev  S.A.O 282/68]

#If landlord having several houses. Burden on him to prove that the other premises which are vacant is not suitable for residential purposes. [M.M Quasim v Manoharlal AIR 1981 SC 1113]

#where the premises are let for residential purposes and it is shown that they are used by the tenant incidentally for commercial purposes with the landlord’s consent, the landlord would not be entitled to eject the tenant even if he proves that he needs the premises bona fide for his personal use because the premises have by their user ceased to be premises let for residential purposes alone. [Dr. Gopal Dass Verma v S.K. Bhardwaj, AIR 1963 SC 337]

#Where building was continuously used for lodging paying guests openly, the implied consent of the landlord is presumed, unless proved contrary. Cannot avail Clause (e) [Guru Prasad v Sadhu Sharan Prasad 1992 (1) RCJ 371]

#Where it is proved that a substantial portion of the premises have been used for commercial purposes to the knowledge of the landlord without any objection, the premises would be deemed to have been let out for commercial purposes as well. [Ajit Singh v Inder Singh, 1979 (1) RCJ 152]

Under S. 14 (1) (f)

#Few cracks in the building no ground for eviction. If repairs can be carried out without premises being vacated then no grounds for eviction. [Puran Chand v Roshan Lal]

Under S. 14 (1) (g)

#S.20 protects Tenant

#Ordinary repairs cannot come within the meaning of “building” and “re-building”. [Ramesh Ch. Bhattacharjee v Nagendra Mullick AIR 1951 Cal. 435]

#Existing condition of the building, its age and situation, along with the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction has to be seen. [Metalware & Co. v Bansilal Sharma, (1979) 3 SCR 1107]

#Under S. 14 (8) sanction for rebuilding required before evicting tenant – > [Jagdish Prasad v Hamid Hussain 1966 DLT 189]

Under S. 14 (1) (h)

#If tenant acquired or allotted residence before tenancy began then cannot be evicted [Avinash Kaur v

Beli Ram, 1970 RCJ 995]

#if residence acquired by wife then no ground for eviction – [Prem Chand v Sher Singh, 1981 DRJ 287 (SC)]

Under S. 14 (1) (i)

#if contract of service required that the servant should stay in premises then he is not a tenant [G.G. of India v Corporation of Calcutta – > AIR 1948 Cal. 8]