You are on page 1of 49

Grounds for

eviction of
tenant
S. 20-24

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 1


1. Non payment of Rent (S.
20 (2)(a))
• Payment of rent= primary obligation of tenant
towards landlord
• Rule of “pay and stay”
• Such payment is to include the permissible
increases in rent as agreed upon by the parties and
permitted in law (Director Health Services Haryana
v. Pritam Singh , 1993(2) RCR 34 P&H)
– Hardev Kaur v M/S Ghazal Restaurant, 1992 (2) RCR 660
P&H (DB)
– Agreed rent= Rs. 9000
– lease deed stipulated that the tenant would pay 10%
increase on the expiry of three years
– Arrears of rent payable = Rs 9900

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 2


Notice of 2 months time
Default for 3 Demand to pay= Rent Still in arrears =
or more
(S. 106 TPA and other Eviction
consecutive
and Schedule charges +15% petition
months
VII) interest

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 3


Difference between 1949
and 1995 Act

1949 1995
• Notice of demand - optional • Notice of demand –
• Time for default- any month Mandatory
till last day of month next • Time: 3 months
following that for which rent • Payment at first hearing- not
is payable valid
• Payment at first hearing= • Rate of interest= 15%
valid = petition infructuous
• Rate of interest= 6%

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 4


• M/S Roxy Enterprises v Mrs Aruna Raina , 1993(2) RCR 626 Del :
– Tenant must pay rent even when premises are attached- : either before or even
after service of notice the rent was not paid either to M.C.D. or to the landlady.
The service of order for attachment u/S.162 of the D.M.C. Act does not mean that
the tenant is immune altogether to pay the rent either to Mcd or to the landlady.
The rent has neither been deposited with the Mcd nor paid to the landlady. Liable
for eviction for non-payment of rent

• Security to be adjusted against arrears of rent: Amount received by landlord as security


will frustrate his right to evict the tenant on the ground of non- payment of rent as long as the arrears of rent payable by the
tenant are within the limit of the money available with the landlord as security.

– Kranti Swaroop Machine Tools Pvt Ltd v Kanta Bai Asawa, 1994 (1) RCR 399 SC
– Case under AP law
– Tenant  Rs 10000 as advance/security
– M/S Roxy Enterprises v Mrs Aruna Raina , 1993(2) RCR 626 Del
– Eviction sought on the ground of non-payment of rent
– Held, as long as the arrears of rent are less than the security deposit, the tenant is not
liable for eviction on account of non-payment of rent.

– K. Narasimha Rao v T.M Nasimuddin Ahmed, 1996(1) RCR 395 SC


– u/ T.N law
– Tenant paid 20 months advance and then default for 5 months
– SC held that tenant is not a defaulter even if he did not ask the landlord expressly to
adjust the advance against the rent. NANDITTA BATRA
22-04-2015 5
• Burden of proof of payment= Tenant
– Can do by receipts

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 6


2. Change of user (S.
20(2)(b))
• Landlord and tenant must mutually agree to
the purpose for which the building would be
used.
• In case the tenant wants to use the rented
premises for a different purpose later on, he
must obtain the written consent of landlord to
do so.
• Eg: changing residential to non-residential or
scheduled

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 7


Ghansham Dass v. Gurdwara Shri Guru
Nanak Sat Sangh Sabha Regd. Sonepat,
1983(1) Rent Law Reporter 664.

• In the aforesaid case, a shop had been let out


for general business. The tenant later on
changed the aforesaid business and started
selling oxygen gas cylinders. It was held by that
the business of general merchandise did not
include the business of selling of oxygen gas,
which business was of a dangerous material
and therefore, the said change of business
amounted to change of user by the tenant.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 8


Rai Chand Jain vs Miss Chandra
Kanta Khosla, AIR 1991 SC 744
• The tenant in the instant case, took the lease in his
own name and the rent not was signed by him. It is
also evident that he is the sole proprietory of M/s.
Navneet Prakashan. In these circumstances it
cannot but be held that the lease of the demised
premises was given to the tenant appellant for his
residence.
• It held that the demised premises was let out to the
appellant and not to the Navneet Prakashan and
the purpose of tenancy is to use the demised
premises as residence and since the appellant has
used the premises for a purpose other than that for
which it was let out to him, he was liable to be
evicted

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 9


Allied business and
business unconnected ?
• Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, (1984 Punjab Law
Reporter 1)
– allied business would not amount to change of user
but for a business which is not allied for the business
for which it was let out would amount to change of
user

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 10


Santosh Kapor And Ors. vs Ram
Sarup , (2003) 135 PLR 642
• The petitioners have sought ejectment on the ground
that the respondent who was let out the shop for
Karyana business had also installed a grinding machine
without their consent and, thus, the respondent has
changed the user of the demised premises.
• Once the premises have been let out to the tenant
without any specific purpose of business, there is no
restriction in the kind of the activity which may be carried
out by the tenant.
• the respondent-tenant is using the demised premises for
business of Karyana and has installed a grinding machine
for grinding of Masala which is an ancillary purpose to
the main purpose of letting out this premises. Such
grinding machine is ancillary to the main business of
Karyana.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 11


22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 12
Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan,
1988 SCR (3) 345
• Landlord-Renting out shop-Tenant-To run business of
English Liquor Vend-Do sale of liquor-Liquor licence not
renewed-Tenant doing business of general merchandise-
Whether change in user?
• HELD:
– The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of the
purposes of the Rent Act in question which is to control the
eviction of tenants therefrom.
– In the expanding concept of business nowadays and the
growing concept of departmental stores, it cannot be said that
there was any change of user in the instant case, when the
tenant converted the use of the building from liquor vend
business to that of general merchandise. The building was
rented for the purpose of carrying on a business. It was used for
another business which would not in any way impair the utility
or damage to the building, and the business could be
conveniently carried on in the said premises.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 13


Gian Chand And Anr. vs Krishna
Kumari, (2005) 141 PLR 180
• Facts: premises in question had been given to Gian Chand for the
purpose of running Karyana and Provisions business butGian Chand
had started using the premises in question for a purpose other than
for which the same had been let out to him and had started the
wholesale business of fire works and had stocked the heavy
quantity of fire crackers during Diwali season of 1984, a fire broke
out in the premises and a fire brigade had to be called and the fire
was controlled with great difficulty.

• the change of user has to be viewed from the angle that the
aforesaid user would not cause any mischief or detriment or
impairment of the shop in question. Thus, the test of find out is, as to
whether there was any change of user or not and as to whether the
aforesaid change of user had led to any mischief or impairment of
the shop or detriment of the same in any manner.

• Obviously, in the present case, storage of a huge quantity of fire


crackers and sale thereof has caused a mischief, detriment and
impairment of the shop by causing a danger to the same. This
cannot be permitted. The business of storage and sale of fire
crackers cannot be inferred to be an ancillary business to that
karyana goods or confectionery items.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 14


Small change- no
prejudice to landlord
• Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, AIR 1989 SC 1841
– Premises let out for cycle and rickshaw repair-Business of selling
televisions also carried on temporarily side by side-Whether change
of user.
– In the rent note there was no stipulation that the appellant would
not do any business in the shop except the cycle or rickshaw
repairs.
– HELD: Letting of a premises can broadly be for residential or
commercial purpose. The restriction which is statutorily provided in
section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act is obviously one to protect the
interests of the landlord and is intended to restrict the use of
landlord's premises taken by the tenant under lease. It is akin to the
provision contained in section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act
dealing with the obligations of a lessee. A house let for residential
purpose would not be available for being used as a shop even
without structural alteration. The concept of injury to the premises
which forms the foundation of clause (o) is the main basis for
providing clause (b) in section 13(2)(ii) of the Act as a ground for
the tenant's eviction.
– The landlord parts with possession of the premises by giving a lease
of the property to the tenant for a consideration. Ordinarily, as long
as the interest of the landlord is not prejudiced, a small change in
the user would not be actionable. This did not constitute a change
of user within the meaning of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act so as to
22-04-2015 give a cause of action to the landlord
NANDITTA BATRA to seek eviction of the
15
tenant.
Jagdish Chand vs Surinder
Kumar, (2005) 139 PLR 509
• change of business from cloth merchant to sale of note -
books and stationery items
• The nature of the user of premises continues to be the same
and instead of cloth, the tenant-respondent has started
selling the stationery items. In the present time of fast
changing world, switching over from one business to
another without harming the nature of use of the premises
has to be considered permissible without being hit by the
mischief of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. In Gurdial Batra's
case (supra) it has been observed by the Supreme Court
that some prejudice must be shown to have been caused
to the interest of the landlord which is the rationale of
Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.
• no prejudice is caused to the interest of the landlord-
petitioner because some wooden shelves could be used for
stocking the cloth where the tenant-respondent might have
stocked the stationery items.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 16


Jagdish Lal vs Parma Nand, 2000
SC- temporary change of user
• the premises in question was let out to the appellant for "Maniari"
[(General Merchant) Readymade & Cloth Merchant] business.

• The setting up of a restaurant therein and serving tea and cold


drinks would, in the circumstances of this case, amount to change
of user within the meaning of Section 13.

• The redeeming feature, however, is that the appellant reverted


back to his original business during the pendency of the eviction
petition before the Rent Controller and for many years now has
been carrying on the original business. In these circumstances,
where the change of business was only for a very short period and
the appellant, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings
reverted to the original business which he is carrying on since then,
and more particularly because all other grounds, namely, arrears
of rent, structural alterations made in the premises in question and
bona fide requirement of the landlord, on which the eviction of the
appellant was sought, have been negatived, that the ends of
justice would be better served if the appellant is allowed to stay in
the premises in question as tenant.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 17


Dharam Raj And Anr. vs Roshan
Lal , (1993) 104 PLR 642
• the tenants, instead of using the shops as such using one them as
godown whereas the other shop was being used as workshop for
baking bamboos. For that purpose, the tenants had installed a
Bhathi.

• Tenants contested the petition on the ground that right from the
inception of tenancy, the shops are being used for the purpose of
godown and workshop respectively and, therefore, they were not
liable to be ejected.

• The Division Bench, on review of the judicial precedents, held that


"mere knowledge of the landlord of the change of user, may be
even from the very inception of the tenancy, would not absolve the
tenant from liability for ejectment on the ground, in the absence of
any written consent of the landlord to such change of user.“

• Admittedly, as per the rent note, premises were to be used as


shops, No written consent whatsoever has been brought on record
or pleaded to show that the landlord ever consented in writing for
change of user. Held = tenant liable for eviction.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 18


When no specific purpose:
• Sudarshan Lal (Died) Through His LRs v. Shrimati Bhushan
Sehgal, (2000) 125 PLR 419
– As per the respondent-landlord the property in question had
been let for doing the embroidery work and now a hotel is
being run therein.
– The initial onus is on the landlord to establish as to what was the
purpose for which the property had been let. The respondents
had not let the property. Therefore, the respondents were not
competent to state the purpose of letting. When a landlord
states that property was let for a particular purpose, then it has
to be proved. In the present case that evidence is missing. It is
admitted that earlier the predecessors-in-interest of the
petitioner were doing the embroidery work and presently they
started a hotel therein. The purpose of letting on basis of such a
plea can only be taken to be commercial.
– When no specific purpose is proved, merely change of user for
one commercial purpose to the other will not make the ground
of eviction available.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 19


3. Non-occupation (S.
20(2)©
• That the premises were let for use as a
residence and “neither the tenant not any
member of his family has been residing therein
for a period of six months;
Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause and
clause (q), “family” means parents, spouse,
dependent sons and daughters or such other
relatives as are ordinarily living with the tenant
and are dependent upon him;

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 20


• No concept of reasonable cause or ceased to
occupy.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 21


4. Unsafe or Unfit for human
habitation + Repairs (S. 20 (2)(d))
• Mandatory Conditions :

1. That the premises or any part have become unsafe or unfit for
human habitation

2. Premises are required by the landlord for carrying out repairs or


reconstruction

3. Such repairs or reconstruction cannot be carried out without the


premises being vacated.

4. the Rent Authority is satisfied that :


1. the plans and estimates of such repairs or reconstruction, as the case may
be, have been properly prepared and
2. that the or re-construction:landlord has the necessary means to carry out
the said repairs

5. if the landlord proposes to change the use of the premises after


re-construction, than, he shall so specify in his application for
recovery of possession

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 22


• Petition under this sub clause is not on the
insistence of some authority- likely to be
contested
• The expressions “unsafe” and “unfit for human
habitation” are separated by the term “or” and
not “and”. Either of the two ingredients has to
be satisfied. Remaining portion may be unfit for
human habitation but may not be unsafe.
• Unfit- unsuitable or inappropirate
• Unsafe- not safe: exposed or exposing to
danger

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 23


Meaning of the term
“human habitation”
• Human habitation does not refer to a building
which is used by a human being for actual
residence.

• According to the court in Meja Singh v Karam Singh,


(1981) 83 PLR 386 a building is inhabited by a human
being for the moment, he is present therein and if a
building is not safe or fit even for a moment’s
habitation of a human being, then such a building
in question would be considered unsafe and unfit
for human habitation.

• Premises used for godown- amounts to use of


premises for human habitation

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 24


Tenant cannot carry out repairs
himself to defeat the right of
landlord
• Balbir Singh v Hari Ram, 1982(2) RCR 329
– Building becoming unsafe and unfit for human
habitation- a right accrues to landlord to eject tenant
and tenant cannot carry out repairs himself to defeat
right of landlord to eject tenant.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 25


• Sardari Lal Vishwa Nath v. Pritam Singh, 1978(2)
RCR 589(SC): merely because the building was
standing erect even after the protracted
litigation of 15years does not mean that the
building was not safe or unfit for human
habitaiton.
• Whether unsafe or unfit- depends upon facts
and circumstances of each case- expert
opinion- local commissioner report

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 26


Right of reinduction: provio
to s. 20(2)(h)
• Only where rebuilding is less than 75%:
– Tenant has to elect : the fact of election must be recorded in the order
– But at new terms of tenancy
– Only in that rebuilt building equivalent in area to the originial premises for which he was a tenant
(No increase in area)
– Acc to S. 30: New rent is to be fixed by Rent authority

• If the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs or building or re-building within
three months of the specified date (S. 30(3))
– the Rent Authority may, on an application made to him
– by the tenant,
– within subsequent three months
– order the landlord to place the tenant in occupation of the premises on the same terms and
conditions and to pay to the tenant such compensation as the Rent Authority thinks fit.

• However under 1949 law, divergent views but in Shadi Singh v Rakha, 1992(1)RCJ
502(SC): held that when a tenant has been evicted on the ground that the building has
become unfit or unsafe for human habitation the landlord is obliged to reinduct the
tenant. But it was not followed subsequently see Wazir chand v Swarankar Sabha, 1990
(1) RCR 483 SC

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 27


5. Complying with Demolition
orders (S. 20 (2)(e))
• “that the premises or any part thereof are
required by the landlord for the purpose of
immediate demolition ordered by the
Government or any local authority or the
premises are required by the landlord to carry
out any building work at the instance of the
Government or local authority in pursuance of
any improvement scheme or development
scheme and that such building work cannot be
carried out without the premises being
vacated;”

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 28


• Under sub clause (e) the exit of tenant from the
premises is mandatory but under clause (d) it is
subject to a contest or dispute by the tenant.

• Javed Ahmed Khan v Syed Ali, 1994(2) RCR 640:


Karnataka High Court held that when the MC had
ordered demolition in view of the dangerous
condition of the building, the Rent Controller cannot
go behind the notice of demolition and come to a
different conclusion. The final authority in ordering
demolition lies with MC.

• Same right of reinduction as under unfit or unsafe


clause

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 29


6. Repairs (s. 20 (2)(f)
• “that the premises or any part thereof are required by
the landlord for carrying out any repairs which cannot
be carried out without the premises being vacated;”
• same right to reinduct

d e f
unsafe or unfit –not unsafe or unfit –not
Unsafe and unfit
required required

order by govt/local order by govt/local order by govt/local


auhority- not prerequisite auhority- MUST auhority- not prerequisite

Cannot be carried on Cannot be carried on Cannot be carried on


without premises being without premises being without premises being
vacated
22-04-2015 vacatedNANDITTA BATRA vacated 30
7. Re-Building or
Construction (S. 20(2)(g):
• “that the premises are required by the landlord
for the purpose of building or re-building or
making thereto any substantial addition or
alteration including construction on the terrace
or on the appurtenant land and that such
building or re-building or addition or alteration
cannot be carried out without the premises
being vacated;”
• Same rights vis-à-vis reinduction

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 31


8. Demolition to re-build (S.
20 (2)(h))
• “that the premises consist of not more than two
floors and the same are required by the
landlord for the purpose of immediate
demolition with a view to re-build the same. “
• Same rights vis-à-vis reinduction

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 32


9. Acquisition of Residence
by tenant (S 20(2)(i))
• “(i) that the tenant, his spouse or a dependent
son or daughter ordinarily living with him has,
whether before or after the commencement of
this Act, built or acquired vacant possession of
or been allotted a residence on hire purchase
basis;
• Provided that the Rent Authority may in
appropriate case allow the tenant to vacate
the premises within such period as he may
permit but not exceeding three months from
the date of passing of orders of eviction or one
year from the date of getting possession of
premises referred to in sub-section (1) above. “

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 33


10. Cessation of
employment (S 20(2)(j))
• “that the premises were let to the tenant for use
as a residence by reasons of his being in the
service or employment of the landlord, and
that the tenant has ceased, whether before or
after the commencement of this Act, to be in
such service or employment.
• Provided that no order for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall be made on
this ground if the Rent Authority is of the opinion
that there is any bona fide dispute as to
whether the tenant has ceased to be in the
service of employment of the landlord.”

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 34


11. Diminishing the Utility (S
20(2)(k))
• “that the tenant has, caused or permitted to be caused substantial
damage to or such alteration of the premises as has the effect of
changing its identity or diminishing its value.

• Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, “substantial damage”


shall mean such damage as shall involve an expenditure
equivalent to six month’s rent or more, of the premises or such less
expenditure as the Rent Authority is satisfied, keeping in view, the
special nature of damage, justify the same to be treated as
substantial damage for carrying out the repairs for such damage.

• Provided that no order for the recovery of possession of any


premises shall be made on the ground specified in this clause, if the
tenant within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the
Rent Authority, carries our repairs to the damage caused to the
satisfaction of the Rent Authority of pays to the landlord such
amount by way of compensation as the Rent Authority may direct;”

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 35


• He may do the act himself or acquiesce to the
doing of such act by another

• Substantial damage ( 6 months rent reqd for repairs)


 change the identity or diminish the value
– Lowering economic value or endangering the safety or
shortening the period of its utlilty
– If the additions/alterations = temporary for purpose of
comfortable use- not hit by this section

• Not absolute ground:


– Tenant to carry on the repairs to the damage
– Compensation

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 36


Om Pal vs Anand Swarup (Dead By Lrs.), 1988 SCC (4) 545-
The construction by the tenant must not only be one
effecting or diminishing value of utility of building but also
impairment must be of a material nature.

• The appellant had taken on lease a room from the respondent for running a
dry-cleaning shop. The appellant later put up a parchhati in the shop for
storing clothes. The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the tenant under
section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the
ground that the construction of the parchhati was an act causing material
impairment to the building.

• Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the contention
of the respondent. The High Court, in revision, affirmed their findings.

• Allowing the appeal, it was, HELD:


– (1) It is not every construction or alteration that would result in material impairment
to the value or the utility of the building.
– (2) In order to attract s. 13(2)(iii) the construction must not only be one affecting or
diminishing the value or utility of the building but such impairment must be of a
material nature i.e. of a substantial and significant nature.
– (3) When a construction is alleged to materially impair the value or utility of a
building, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish
the value of the building either from the commercial and monetary point of view or
from the utilitarian aspect of the building.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 37


From the point of view of landlord

Not diminishing the Prejudicially


utility affecting
• Small tank for water • Closing window- putting
collection- up a rolling shutter-
photographer’s shop separate counter to sell
• Hole to let out smoke cigarettes
• Shed to prevent sun light • Construction of another
and rain water floor

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 38


When utility may increase but
nature / identity of building
changes- covered
• Sukha singh Harcharan Singh v Dina Nath, 1981
(1) RCJ 477- tabela to shop !

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 39


12. Nuisance (S 20(2)(l))
• “that the tenant or any person residing with the
tenant has been convicted of causing
nuisance or annoyance to a person living in the
negihbourhood of the premises or has been
convicted of using or allowing the use of the
premises for an immoral or illegal purpose.”
• Conviction is must! criminal trial must be
concluded before ejectment
• Of the tenant or any person living with him –
under 1949 law only acts attributable to tenant
attracted this provision

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 40


13. Violation of statutory
condition (S 20(2)(m))
• “that the tenant has, used or dealt with the
premises in a manner contrary to any condition
imposed on the landlord by the Government, while
giving him a lease of the land on which the
premises are situated;
• Provided that no order for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall be made on this
ground if the tenant within a such time, as may be
specified in this behalf of the Rent Authority,
complies with the condition imposed on the
landlord by any of the authority referred to this
clause;”
• Landlord must be lease holder!

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 41


Durga Seed Farm v. Raj Kumari
Chandha, (1996)11 Supreme
Court Cases 715
• Facts were that the Chandigarh Administration
had leased the land to the respondent who
constructed a building for use as a showroom.
A tenant was inducted for the purpose of
running a showroom-cum-office. He made
unauthorised construction and put up some
machines. It was held that it would expose the
landlord to the peril of resumption. The changes
so made had materially impaired the value
and utility of the building. Tenant was liable for
eviction.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 42


14. Lack of bona fide denial
of tenant’s ownership(S
20(2)(n))
• “that the tenant in his reply having, denied the
ownership of landlord has failed to prove it or
that such denial was not made in a bona fide
manner;”
• Ejectment application on some other ground
• Tenant in that application:
– Denies the ownership of tenant (alternative plea
cannot be taken)
– Denial was not bona fide

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 43


15. Not a bona fide tenant
(S 20(2)(o))
• “that the person in occupation of the premises
has failed to prove that he is a bona fide
tenant;”
• Against unauthorized occupants
• But if he is not a tenant- why not criminal
trespass ?

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 44


16. Violation of condition to
vacate on expiry : (S 20(2)(p))
• that the tenant after having agreed with or
having informed the landlord in writing the date
to vacate the premises does not do so on or
after the date so agreed or informed;

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 45


17. Own use : Bona fide necessity
of landlord : (S 20(2)(q))
• that the premises let for residential or non-residential purpose are required,
whether in the same or after reconstruction or re-building, by the landlord for
occupation for residential or non-residential purpose for himself or for any
member of his family if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for who
benefit the premises are held that the landlord or such person has no other
reasonable suitable accommodation.

• Provided that where the landlord has acquired the premises by transfer no
application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under this
clause unless a period of three years elapsed from the date of the
acquisition:

• Provided further that where an order for the recovery of possession of any
premises is made on the ground specified in this clause, the landlord shall be
entitled to obtain possession thereof on the expiration of a period of three
months from the date of passing of eviction order.

• Explanation.- 1. For the purposes of this clause, where the landlord in his
application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises are required
by him for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent
on him, the Rent Authority shall presume that the premises are so required.

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 46


• For own use/family member/ beneficiary for
whom he the trustee
• Presumption in favour of bona fide necessity –
stark change from 1949 law
• Prohibition on re-letting (S. 29) and re-entry in
case of non use

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 47


18. Right to recovery immediate
possession of premises to accrue
to certain persons (S. 21)
• (1) Where a person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to
him by the Government or any local authority is required by, or in
pursuance of any general or special order made by that Government or
authority, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default to
incur certain obligations, on the ground that he or his spouse or his
dependent son or daughter as the case may be owns, in the concerned
local authority residential accommodation, there shall accrue, on and
from the date of such order, to such person his spouse or his dependent
son or daughter as the case may be, notwithstanding anything contained
elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in
any contract (whether express or implied custom or usage to the
contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises left
out by him, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter, as the case may
be:

• Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferred a


right on such person, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter, as the
case may be owning in the concerned local authority two or more
dwelling houses, to recover the possession of more than one dewelling
house and it shall be lawful for such person, his spouse or his dependent
son or daughter, as the case may be to indicate the dewelling house
possession of which he intends to recover.
22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 48
Specified landlord?

S. 22 S. 23 S. 24 S. 32

•Armed forces •Central and state •Widows, •Body corporate


government handicapped /company/public
employees persons, old instution
persons, freedom
fighters and NRI

22-04-2015 NANDITTA BATRA 49