DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
Q. 'A' let out the premises in suit to B for period of three years by virtue of permission granted under section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After expiry of said period 'A' filed another application seeking permission to create limited tenancy for period to two years in favour of 'B' himself without mentioning the factum of having already created a limited tenancy in his favour B appeared before Rent Controller and made a statement on oath that he was willing to take premises on lease for limited period of two years. Permission was granted by controller.
At the end of two years 'a' files an execution application seeking delivery of possession of leased premises. 'B' opposed the application on the ground that order of Rent Controller granting permission is illegal and void since same was obtained by a concealment of material facts. Decide the objection. (D.J.S. 1989)
Q. The respondent was inducted as a tenant under a registered deed of lease dated April 23, 1948 for a period of three years. After the expiry of the said period of 1951, the respondent continued in possession by holding over. The premises consisted of four rooms. In 1986, the respondent created three separate sub-tenancies in favour of three persons in respect of three rooms.
The landlord seeks eviction of the respondent under section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that the respondent has sub-let a part of the premises without obtaining his consent in writing. The respondent relies upon clause 6 of the lease deed which reads : "That the lessee shall use the demised premises as office and shall be entitled to sub-let the portion which may not be used by him." Decide the plea raised by the respondent. (D.J.S. 1989)
Q. A let out certain premises to B on September 1, 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-, the rent being stipulated as payable in advance. Rent had been paid till March, 1989. B received a notice on May 7, 1989 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. April 1, 1989. On May 13, 1989 B sent a draft for Rs.500/- to A who retained the draft and intimated B on June 7, 1989 that the tender was not valid. On June 11, 1989 B sent another draft for Rs.500/-. A did not encash or return these drafts.
On August 2, 1989 A filed an application for eviction of B from the suit premises on the ground that B has neither paid nor tendered 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, B admittedly earlier having enjoyed the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Will A succeed? (D.J.S. 1989)
Q. A let out suit premises to B for residential purpose in April 1978 on monthly rent of Rs.340/-. On or about August 25, 1988 B's wife was allotted a government flat due to her employment as teacher in Government School. In August 1989 'a' sue for eviction of B under section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that B has acquired vacant possession of a residence. Decide giving reasons. Would it make any difference if B's wife has purchased the residential flat with her own savings? (D.J.S. 1989)
Q. Petitioner known as A filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act with assertions that he is the owner of the disputed premises bearing No.125 South Extension, New Delhi. He required the same for his bonafide personal need for his residence. Since the impugned premises were constructed on a residential plot of land leased out by the President of India to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 12.04.1958 the construction was purely of a residential nature. There was no written lease agreement in between the petitioner and the respondent named B. However the respondent had represented at the time of taking the premises on rent that the respondent would use the premises in dispute as a guest house for the officers of the Company and it was so used in the beginning but later on it was used as on office. The Addl. Rent Controller directed the respondent to stop the misuse of the premises within 15 days of the order. The land and Development officer levied the misuser charges which were paid by the petitioner but later reimbursed by the respondent. The petitioner was in occupation of a rented accommodation at the time of letting out the disputed premises to the to the respondent. However, subsequently, an eviction order was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner went in appeal but lost the same. The 2nd appeal was also dismissed. Special leave petition before the honourable Supreme Court also met the same fate. Since the petitioner had no other house to live in, the mother of the petitioner who is the owner of a House No.25, Chanakya Puri, Delhi, gave her house to him after getting it vacated from a tenant. The mother of the petitioner has no independent source of income but is dependent on the rental income from the above house as a source for her livelihood. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the said house on his undertaking that he would vacate the same as soon as his own premises are vacated.
The defence as set up by the respondent in the written statement was that the disputed accommodation was let out for an office. The letting purpose being commercial the petition under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 Chanakya Puri, Delhi, gave her house to him after getting it vacated from a tenant. The mother of the petitioner has no independent source of income but is dependent on the rental income from the above house as a source for her livelihood. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the said house on his undertaking that he would vacate the same as soon as his own premises are vacated.
The defence as set up by the respondent in the written statement was that the disputed accommodation was let out for an office. The letting purpose being commercial the petition under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 Chanakya Puri is not that of the mother of the petitioner. It is wrong that the petitioner was allowed to stay there as a tenant. The petitioner did not require the premises bonafide for his residence or that of his family members.
The respondent did not dispute the ownership of the petitioner in regard to the suit property. The main contest was regarding the letting purpose and that alternative suitable accommodation was available to the petitioner. (D.J.S. 1990)
Q. Is there any provision in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for creation of a tenancy for limited period? If so what are the essential conditions that are required to be observed by the Rent Controller while passing an order for granting the permission? (D.J.S. 1991)
Q. X premises in Delhi were let out on permission under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for a limited period of 3 years. After expiry of the period, the landlord did not file an application for obtaining possession and a period of 6 months as provided in Rule 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 had expired.
Thereafter, landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement.
The tenant pleaded that the petition could not proceed as he had ceased to be a tenant of the demised premises on the expiration of the period of three years for which the premises were let out under section 21 of the Act. He also pleaded that alleged requirement of the landlord were malafide on the ground that he did not take steps to obtain possession after the expiry of fixed term tenancy of three years under section 21 of the Act.
Q. Comment whether contention of the tenant is tenable. (D.J.S. 1991)
Q. If a limited tenancy under section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act is properly created and the landlord applies for warrant of possession within the limitation period of 6 months as provided in Rule 5 of Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959. State whether issue of notice to tenant is necessary before issuing warrant of possession of tenanted premises? Discuss. (D.J.S. 1991)
Q. A is working as Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. He was allotted Type V Govt. accommodation in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. There was a Servant Quarter attached to the Government accommodation. A, the Allottee engaged a Servant B to attend to the menial jobs of his house and in lieu of the services to be rendered by the Servant, allowed him to live in the servant Quarter. The servant did not perform his job properly and A became annoyed and asked B to vacate the Servant Quarter. B did not vacate the same. A disconnected the electricity and water connection.
B filed a petition before Rent Controller under section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed A to restore electric connection and water supply being Essential Services and also awarded a compensation of Rs.50 in favour of B under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of the Section 45 of the Act by holding that A had cut the essential supply and service without just and sufficient cause.
Comment whether order of Rent Controller is legal and valid. (D.J.S. 1991)
Q. A had let out premises No.'X' in Delhi to B on 15.01.1985 for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. There was an agreement, which provided that the tenant would vacate the tenanted premises after expiry of 3 years from the date of tenancy. Tenant did not vacate the tenanted premises after expiry of 3 years and the landlord filed a suit for possession of the tenanted premises in the Civil Court. Case came up for hearing before Sub-Judge, 1st Class Delhi. Tenant appeared before Sub-Judge and prayed for time of six months to vacate the premises. Landlord 'a' agrees to the request of tenant 'B'. Their statements were recorded by Sub-Judge and in terms of the statements of the parties, consent decree of possession of the tenanted premises was passed in favour of landlord.
After expiry of six months of the passing of the decree for possession, the tenant did not vacate the tenanted premises.
Landlord filed an application before sub-judge for execution of the Decree. Comment whether the order of Sub-judge is legal and valid and whether Decree can be executed. (D.J.S. 1991)
Q. A had let out a shop to B where B was running his business. After the death of B his eldest son C continued the business and for sometime had been paying rent also. Later on C committed default in the payment of rent so much so that an eviction order is passed by Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent. When A south to execute the eviction order other heirs of B namely his wife and other son filed objections pleading that C was not the exclusive tenant, they had also inherited the tenancy. Whether their objections have any merits? Decide. (D.J.S. 1996)
Q. A landlord lets out a premise for the purpose, which is contrary to terms of perpetual lease granted to landlord by DDA. DDA threatens to cancel the lease on the ground of misuser. Can landlord seek eviction of tenant under section 14(1)(k) of Delhi Rent Control Act? What defence is open to tenant in such a case? Discuss.
Q. X and Y (landlord and tenant) are living peacefully in the same building, which is quite old. Municipal Authorities gave notice to landlord for repairs of one of the walls. For repair of wall it is necessary that water and electric supply be cut off. However, even after the repair of wall, landlord does not get the supplies restored from MCD. Tenant files a petition under section 45 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Landlord pleads he had to get the supplies disconnected under forced circumstances? How would you decide? (D.J.S. 1996)
Q. In an eviction petition by landlord against his tenant an order under section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act is passed directing the tenant to pay arrears of rent within one month of the date of order and also to pay future rent month by month. Tenant paid the amount to his Advocate, who handed it over to his clerk for deposit. But the clerk due to some personal needs spends the money and does not deposit. Landlord filed an application under section 15(7) Delhi Rent Control Act for striking the defence of tenant. Tenant pleads for extension of time and negligence of the clerk of counsel? How would you decide? (D.J.S. 1996)
Q. Under Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act a tenant may be evicted where he has built, acquired or has been allotted a residence. X a Ltd. Company had taken on rent a flat from Y for residence of the manager of X. Subsequently X took one more flat on rent for the residence of its another officer. Y filed eviction petition under section 14(1)(h) alleging that the tenant had acquired another residence. X pleaded that it being a company did not acquire may flat for its residence and it was free to have as many flats as it required for the use of its officers. X contended that this ground could be invoked only against individual tenants who acquired alternative accommodation for their residence. Decide the eviction petition. (D.J.S. 1999)
Q. Landlord created a tenancy under section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act or period of 3 years. The tenant failed to vacate premises after expiry of tenancy. When landlord moved Rent Controller by filing execution application, tenant raised a plea that permission under section 21 of Act was vitiated as it was obtained by playing fraud upon court. Decide the plea of tenant in the light of law of subject. (D.J.S. 1999)
Q. Discuss the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act regarding landlord's duty to keep the premises in good tenantable repairs. (D.J.S. 2000)
Q. A tenant of residential premises constructed a residential house in Lal-Dora area of Delhi to which provisions of Delhi Rent Control act, 1958 did not apply. The landlord filed eviction petition on the ground that tenant has acquired alternative residential accommodation and hence liable to vacate the tenanted premises. Decide giving reasons and discussing relevant provisions of law applicable to this case. (D.J.S. 2000)
Q. In response to the notice of demand-served u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent under section 27 of the Act, within two months of the service of the notice. The landlord seeks eviction of the tenant on ground of non-payment of rent. Decide giving reasons. (D.J.S. 2000)
Q. What do you understand by limited period tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? What considerations are required to be fulfilled for creating tenancy for limited period? Discuss in the light of law as laid down in the case S.B. Naronah v. Prem Kumar, 1980 (10 SCC 52). (D.J.S. 2000)
Watch useful videos for Judicial Coaching
Download Vidhi Judicial Academy APP for Judiciary Coaching