JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

CONTROL OF EVICTION
OF TENANT WITH ROLE
OF SLUM AREA
(IMPROVEMENT AND
CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956
Guided By: Dr. Kahkashan Y. Danyal
TUSHAR GUPTA
5TH YEAR

LAND LAW ASSIGNMENT

0|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I would like to thank my seminar teacher, Dr. Kahkashan Y. Danyal, for being

a guiding force throughout the course of this submission and being instrumental in the

successful completion of this project report without which my efforts would have been in

vain.

I am thankful to the Librarians, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia for helping me in

collecting the relevant material for my project report.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my friends and family for their constant review

and honest remarks.

TUSHAR GUPTA

B.A.LL.B (Hons) 9th Semester

5th Year

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3
THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................................................. 3
THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 .......................................................... 4
OBJECT & PURPOSE OF THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 .................... 7
DESCRIPTION OF SLUM ....................................................................................................................... 9
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 ......................................................................................................... 11
CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANTS................................................................................................ 11
Section 14(1) (a) ................................................................................................................................ 11
Section 14(1) (b) ................................................................................................................................ 11
Section 14(1) (c) ................................................................................................................................ 12
Section 14(1) (d) ................................................................................................................................ 13
Section 14(1) (e) ................................................................................................................................ 13
THE OLD AGE ......................................................................................................................................... 15
START NEW BUSINESS/NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED ............................................................................. 15
Section 14(1) (f)................................................................................................................................. 16
Section 14(1) (g) ................................................................................................................................ 16
Section 14(1) (h) ................................................................................................................................ 16
Section 14(1) (i) ................................................................................................................................. 17
Section 14(1) (j) ................................................................................................................................. 17
Section 14(1) (k) ................................................................................................................................ 18
SUMMARY PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................ 19
Object ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Procedure.......................................................................................................................................... 19

2|Page
 INTRODUCTION

According to the Murphy’s Law of Economic Policy states that “Economists

have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most
agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and
disagree most vehemently”.1 While most economists agree that rent controls are
bad, nothing of note has been done towards deregulating rents, especially in
India. Also, the sheer diversity of rent control laws existing in various states and
countries, coupled with phenomenal economic diversity makes it very difficult
to generalize the argument across borders, and thus makes the task of policy
makers that much more difficult.

THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first rent control measure in Delhi came after the outbreak of the Second
World War in 1939, under the Defense of India Rules. This was restricted to
New Delhi and the Notified Area, Civil Station. In 1942, the provisions of the
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 were made applicable to the
remaining areas of Delhi. It was soon realized that the provision of the Punjab
Act were insufficient for a city like Delhi and thus, it was supplemented by
another Order under the Defense of India Rules in 1944. After the war, another
comprehensive legislation was passed for all parts of Delhi by the name of The
Delhi and Ajmer Marwara Rent Control Act, 1947. In 1952, it was repealed by
The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, which substituted it and ceased the
application of rent Acts of other states to certain parts of Delhi.

Another attempt was made in 1958 to plug certain loopholes of the 1952 act. In
the same year, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act was passed
which sought to protect the interest of the slum dwellers. The next
1
A Rent Affair, Paul Krugman, The Unofficial Paul Krugman <http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html>

3|Page
comprehensive enactment on rent control in Delhi was passed in 1958 and came
into force on February 9, 1959. This is the current legislation of rent control in
Delhi and it extends to the areas included within the New Delhi Municipal
Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board, together with the urban areas of
the Municipal Corporation of the Urban Areas in Delhi.

First, let’s discuss about The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
1956 and then we will move forward towards the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956

An Act no. 96 of the year 1956, being ‘The Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, 1956’, a Central Government legislation, was assented on 28th
December, 1956 by the President of India. The said Act was enacted with the
object to improve and clear the slum areas in particular Union Territories and
also to protect the tenants against eviction in such slum areas. Hon’ble Judiciary
many times explained the purposed of this Act in their observations in the
related matters. A full bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, observed in the
case of Bardu Ram v. Ram Chander2, that the very important object of this Act
is to enable the poor, who do not have any place to go to and if he will be
evicted to remain in his dwellings until provision is made from a better live for
him elsewhere. In the view of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Lal Chand
(dead) by L.Rs and Ors. v. Radha Kishan3, the Act was enacted for protecting
tenants in slum areas from eviction, unless an alternative accommodation is
available to them. The extension of the provisions thereof is provided to the
concerned Union territories; however the Union Territories of the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands and the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands are
exempted. To bring into force the provisions of this Act, the Central

2
AIR 1972 Del. 34 (FB).
3
AIR 1977 SC 789.

4|Page
Government is empowered under this Act. Similarly, a separate date of
commencement for each Union Territory could be provided, like, for Union
Territory of Delhi, the Act brought into force on 8th February, 1957.

The important provisions relating to the purpose of the Act are given under
second Chapter thereof. Section 3 is dealing with the declaration of any area
which upon the report of concerned officer of on information, the competent
authority satisfied that, any building in such area is not fit for human residence
by the reasons mentioned in the provision, as slum area.

Further, the under the next chapter contained in it, the Act provides for powers
to the Competent authority for the purpose of requiring the improvement of
such slum area, buildings which are found unfit for human residence. In the
process of such improvement, the competent authority is required to serve a
notice to the owners of such buildings, under which such owners will be
required to conduct improvement within the period of 30 days from the date of
such notice. And in case of failure of the Owner thereof, to perform the work
required under the Notice, then the authority to perform the work and the
expenses will be recovered from such Owner as arrears of land revenue. The
Competent authority is also empowered to demolish such buildings which are
found unfit for the human habitation and is of such conditions which cannot be
made fit for such purpose.

Moreover, the Act further makes provisions for clearance of the slum and
conduct re-development thereof, under its chapter-IV. Such clearance of the
slum can be made under these provisions by removing or demolishing every
buildings in the slum areas on which the competent authority is satisfied that the
same should be removed. In the process of such clearance of slum area, the first
step which the competent authority is required to take is to declare his intention
in the notification, thereafter to make an order in this relation. Notably, both

5|Page
this, notification and order at their stages should be first submitted to the
Administrator thereof. On confirmation of the order by the Administrator the
owners of buildings are required to demolish the same within 6 weeks or
otherwise within the period so specified thereof. And similar to above, in case
of such owners’ failure to perform demolition, the competent authority to
perform the said demolition and recover the expenses from such owners, as
arrears of land revenue. On such demolition, the competent authority is
empowered to make plan for developing the cleared land by the Owners thereof.
Similarly, for such improvement of slum area, any adjoining or surrounding
land is required as necessary for the purpose, and then the Central Government
can acquire the land on payment of compensation to the owners thereof.

The Act under its fourth Chapter makes very important provisions as to
protection offered to the Tenant in the slum areas against eviction. The section
19 says that there should be previous permission of the competent authority
even after having decree or order of eviction. The Competent authority is
required to make an enquiry and hear the tenant thereof, on any application
made for such eviction. On rejection of permission or otherwise, if any party
thereof feels aggrieved can prefer appeal before the Administrator against the
order of the Competent authority. The eviction of tenants from government
building is exempted to cover under the provisions of this Chapter.

Moreover, the provisions relating to power to enter, inspection, braking, etc. of

such areas and its legality are given under chapter dealing with miscellaneous
provision under this Act. Certain important provisions among them, are
including the power of the Competent authority to direct persons carrying on
any dangerous or offensive trade in the area of slum by its order. Further, the
offences under this Act have been defined under section 32. It is given that, any
person violates the order, notice, etc. under this Act, or acts otherwise which
under this Act leads to an offence as given under the said provision, should be

6|Page
liable to punishment. There are different punishments for different offences and
the maximum punishment is an imprisonment of 3 months and fine as
mentioned. The Court can only proceeds with the prosecution, when there is
prior sanction of the competent authority. The Competent authority can delegate
its powers in certain circumstances to other officers. And the actions of such
competent authority or of any officer taken in good faith and also in pursuance
of this Act, should not be subjected to any legal implication or sanction. These
authorities are treated as public servants. Finally, the Central Government is
having authority to make rules under this Act, on the matters given under the
provision of section 39 of the Act, in particular for carrying on the object and
purpose of the Act. Likewise, the Government has framed ‘The Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance) Rule, 1956′.

OBJECT & PURPOSE OF THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND

CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a recent decision in Virender
Singh v. State Bank of India4 has recapitulated the importance and object of the
Slum Clearance Act in matters where the landlord seeks to evict tenants under
the relevant rent control legislation. The relevant extracts from the judgment are
reproduced herein below;

12. The object and purpose of a Rent Control Legislation was highlighted by the
Supreme Court in the decision reported as Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar5.
In para 23 it was observed:-

“The Rent Acts which are indeed in the nature of social welfare
legislation are intended to protect tenants against harassment and
exploitation by landlords, safeguarding at the same time the legitimate

4
Decided on 12 December 2011.
5
1985 (2) SCC 683.

7|Page
 interest of the landlords. The Rent Acts seek to preserve social harmony
and promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of the tenants
mainly and at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the
landlords. Though the purpose of the various Rent Acts appear to be the
same, namely, to promote social justice by affording protection to tenants
against undue harassment and exploitation by landlords, providing at the
same time for adequate safeguards of the legitimate interests of the
landlords, the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants
for whose benefit the Rent Acts are essentially passed.”

13. In the context of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the word "Tenant‟ is
defined in clause (ii) of Section 2(l) of the Act, as follows:

“2 (l) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf

the rent of any premises is, or, but for a special contract, would be,
payable, and includes . . .

(ii) Any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy .

. .”

14. It is apparent that the definition of "tenant‟ in the Delhi Rent Control Act
incorporates the concept of a statutory tenant. But since the Delhi Rent Control
Act is not applicable to tenancies where the monthly rent payable is in excess of
Rs. 3,500/-, the question of a tenant whose tenancy has expired by efflux of
time or has been otherwise validly determined as per the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 becoming a statutory tenant does not arise.

15. The essential object of the Slum Act is entirely different. It was noted by a
Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported as Bardu Ram v. Ram
Chander6. It was observed:-

6
AIR 1972 Del 34 (FB).

8|Page
 “An essential object of the Slum Areas Act is to enable the poor, who
have no other place to go to and who, if they were evicted to remain in
their dwellings until provision is made from a better live for them
elsewhere..”

DESCRIPTION OF SLUM

A slum is a heavily populated urban informal settlement characterized by substandard

housing and squalor.7 While slums differ in size and other characteristics from country to
country, most lack reliable sanitation services, supply of clean water, reliable electricity,
timely law enforcement and other basic services. Slum residences vary from shanty houses to
professionally-built dwellings that because of poor-quality design or construction have
deteriorated into slums.8

Under this act slum is defined as an area unfit for human habitation because of dilapidated
buildings, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of buildings, narrowness or faulty
arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities or any other
combination of these factors.

Dilapidated building can be assessed on its basis of repair, stability, freedom from damp,
natural light & air, water supply, drainage & sanitary conveniences.9

The case of Lakshmi Chand Khemani v. Kuaram Devi in support of his submission that the
word "tenant" must bear the same meaning in the Slum Clearance Act as in the Delhi Rent
Control Act.

If a landlord obtains an eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting in respect of a premises

in slum area without obtaining permission under section 19, then the eviction order is a
nullity.10

Where permission is sought both under section 19(4) (a) and 19 (4)(b) of Act, competent
authority should consider both.11

7
What are slums and why do they exist? UN-Habitat, Kenya (April 2007).
8
UN-HABITAT 2007 Press Release on its report, "The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements
2003".
9
Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act, Posted on June 30, 2015 (http://planningtank.com/acts/slum
areas-improvement-and-clearance-act)
10
Albein Plywood v. Janak Kapur 1993 RLR (N) 62

9|Page
Permission under section 19(1) (a) cannot be granted in case tenant is not in a position to
arrange alternative accommodation within his means, if evicted.12

A sub-tenant is not a tenant under the Act and hence to evict him owner of the premises need
not seek permission under 19.13

11
Joginder Singh v. K.C. Johorey 44(1991) DLT 658
12
Noor Ahmed v. Rehmeti Bi 42 (1990) DLT (SN) 27
13
Kailash Chand v. Ganpat Rai 1989 RLR 274;38 (1989) DLT 318

10 | P a g e
 DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958

CONTROL OF EVICTION OF TENANTS

Section 14 lays down notwithstanding anything to the contrary to any law or

contract, no order of eviction can be passed except on the grounds mentioned
under this Section. These words give the primacy to rent control law against
other laws and the contract itself. A word ‘only’ has been used in Section 14
which makes these grounds as exhaustive but, no doubt, a landlord can have one
or more grounds at the same time to get an eviction. Section 14 puts various
riders before passing the orders of eviction. In simple words, an eviction order
shall follow only if there are grounds mentioned under the Act. If the case is not
covered under any of the grounds, no order of eviction shall follow.

SECTION 14(1) (A)

The law does not provide the form of notice or its content, it is just that it must
come from a proper quarter i.e. the landlord or his counsel.

In Raghunath v. Anant Narayan14, apex court held that mere fact that the
amount given in the notice was incorrect was no ground for holding that the
notice was bad and the suit was not maintainable. Since the amount due is
within the special knowledge of the tenant, it does not make such difference and
the tenant is under a duty to pay or deposit as per Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act.

SECTION 14(1) (B)

The sub-letting is not an act forbidden or prohibited by law. The tenant may
sub-let the premises depending upon the contract between him and the landlord.
It is only the absence of writing of the consent of landlord which makes sub-

14
1966 SC

11 | P a g e
letting a ground for eviction. The expression “sub-let, assigned or parted with
possession”, no doubt, are different concepts but in all, there is a transfer of
legal possession of the premises to the persons other than the tenants.

In Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjit Singh15, it was held that the initial
burden of sub-letting is on the landlord but once it is discharged, the onus shifts
on the tenant.

In the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Anguri Devi16, it was held that merely by the
presence of third party the court cannot assume sub-tenancy.

A three-judge Bench, in the case of Krishnawati v. Hansraj17, has laid down

that if a wife allows her husband to continue the business from the premises
then it would amount to sub-letting.

In Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam18, it was held that merely because a tenant
has entered into a partnership he cannot be held to sub-let if the use and the
control is still with the tenant but if it is apparent that the tenancy has been
divided or the possession has been distributed, it would amount to sub-letting.

SECTION 14(1) (C)

By this Section there is an embargo in a sense on a tenant no to use the premises

for any other purpose otherwise than for which he was authorised under the
agreement. In this Section, there is a change of user from residential to
commercial or vice-versa. The change of the user should also be of such a
nature that is causing a public nuisance or damages the property or is
detrimental to the landlord.

15
AIR 1968 SC 933.
16
AIR 1984 SC 1447.
17
AIR 1974 SC 280.
18
(2004) 4 SCC 794.

12 | P a g e
In Pushpa Devi v. Om Prakash, it was laid down that for having eviction under
Section 14(1)(c) a notice should also be given to the tenant requiring him to stop
the misuser and the period of one month should have elapsed from the notice.

SECTION 14(1) (D)

This clause is attracted if the premises are let-out for residential purpose only
and the period of 6 months should be a continuous period.

In Kapil Bhargav v. S.C. Aggarwal19, the court held that if the sub-tenant is in
possession it would not mean that the tenant is in possession.

In Baldev Sahay Bangia v. R.C. Bhasin20, the court defined and laid down the
term ‘family’ with a wider meaning. It has included not only the head of the
family but also all the members, the descendants and the ascendants from a
common ancestor who are living together in the same house.

SECTION 14(1) (E)

The fiction and the mischief of this Section has undergone drastic changes in
the recent past. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Sharma
(Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Anr.21 has shown that how a judicial over-
reach could and should take place, so as to bring the law in conformity with the
demand of the society. It is also a prime example that sometimes the judiciary
should bring out the legislative aspect if the legislators have turned a complete
blind eye due to vote-bank politics.

In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Anr.22, it was held
that “Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act is violative of the doctrine of equality
embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it discriminates

19
AIR 2001 SC 3334.
20
AIR 1982 SC 1091.
21
2008 (5) SCC 287.
22
Ibid.

13 | P a g e
between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the
same are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for
any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter's right to
seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only.”

The Supreme Court further opined that “Ends of justice will be met by striking
down the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1) (e) so that the remaining part
thereof may read as under:

“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 landlord or
such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.”

In the recent judgment of Delhi High Court in Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan
Singh and Anr.23, Hon’ble Justice Manmohan Singh while adjudicating issue
pertaining to bonafide requirement of premises under the provisions of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 opined that, “it is not permissible for the tenant to raise
such issues pertaining to the age of the landlord, his experience and financial
status. These issues are not much relevant for the purpose of deciding the
application for leave to defend in the eviction petition if it is established prima
facie that the requirement of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and no
triable issues are raised by the tenant.”

Hon’ble Justice referred to case laws under claimed circumstances like – old
age, start of new business/ no experiences required, financial status of the
landlord not relevant and bonafide requirement.

It would be worth reproducing the cases referred in this category as timeless

ratio.

23
Judgment dated 02.01.2014.

14 | P a g e
THE OLD AGE

In Dev Raj Bajaj v. R.K. Khanna24, it was observed that “Where a landlord or
his wife were unable to climb the stairs due to old age ailments and wanted to
shift to the ground floor, such a need of the landlord was bonafide. A landlord
can ask for ground floor for his convenience and comfort of his health.”

In Kuldip Mahajan v. Krishna Uppal and Ors.25, this Court has observed that
“Where landlady filed a petition on the ground of bona fide requirement as she
and her husband are of old age and landlady’s intention was to shift residence
for better medical treatment of her husband, no malafide was attributed and it
was held that a period afflicted by Arthritis would not find it convenient to
reside on first floor when ground floor is also owned by her.”

START NEW BUSINESS/NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED

In Balwant Singh Chowdhary & Anr. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Ltd.26, it was held that “It is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove
the specific business he wants to set up, if the landlord wanted the premises for
business purposes.”

In Gurcharan Lal Kumar v. Srimati Satyawati & Ors.27, it was observed that
“Merely because the exact nature of business has not been described would not
take away their bonafide need to carry out a business (when admittedly both the
sons are dependent upon petitioner for this need). It was observed that if the
business need is not disclosed this would not wipe away the bonafide need of the
landlord as has been pressed under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRCA,1958.”

24
1996 RLR 125.
25
97 (2002) DLT 619.
26
2004 (1) RCR 487.
27
RC. Rev. No. 285/2012 and C.M. No.11263/2012 dated 25th April, 2013

15 | P a g e
SECTION 14(1) (F)

Under this clause the necessity of making repairs of the premises is made a
ground of eviction, if the same cannot be carried out without the vacation of the
tenant from the premises. The reason for repairs is that the building has become
unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The Act only considers the public interest,
safety and well-being of the persons and not the financial or commercial aspects
involved in the repairs or reconstruction of the building as provided in some of
the Rent Control Acts.

To invoke this Section, the landlord must prove that:

1. The premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

2. He bonafide requires the same for carrying out repairs.
3. Such repairs cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.

SECTION 14(1) (G)

It provides that the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the demised

premises if it is proved that the premises are required bonafide by the landlord
for the purposes of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial
additions or alterations which cannot be carried out without the premises being
vacated. Thus, two requirements of this Section are:

1. The premises are required bonafide by the landlord for the purposes of
building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or
alterations.
2. The court must be satisfied that the specified work cannot be carried out
without the premises being vacated.

SECTION 14(1) (H)

The policy intended under this Section was that the landlords should also have
their legitimate interests safeguarded. When the tenant is no more the vulnerable
16 | P a g e
class or the person in need, then he should not get the benefit under the Act. In
the case of Ganpat Ram v. Gayatri Devi28 court held that the object of this
clause is to protect or restrict the statutory protection with regard to only one
tenancy. If the tenant acquires another accommodation, he uses his protection
under the Act.

The limitation period for Section 14(1) (h) is 12 years from the day of
knowledge that the tenant has acquired an alternative accommodation.

SECTION 14(1) (I)

Generally, there are 2 kinds of tenancies:

i. Ordinary tenancy
ii. Service tenancy

Service tenancy means that the tenant is occupying the premises because of the
fact that he is in service or employment of the landlord. The essential
ingredients of this Section are:

1. A lessor-lessee relationship.
2. Lessee in service of the lessor.
3. Cessation of service.

In the case of Madhubala v. Shri Ram Scientific & Industrial Research

Foundation29, it was held that Controller only has to see whether the service of
the employee has been validly terminated or not. He might not wait for the final
orders if the Labour Court.

SECTION 14(1) (J)

This Section talks about that if a tenant has caused or permitted to cause
substantial damage or impairment, then he is liable to be evicted from the
28
AIR 1997 SC 2016.
29
98 (2002) DLT 399.

17 | P a g e
premises. Here the damage may be by the tenant himself or by any third party
and the tenant has not stopped the third party. The words ‘materially’ or
‘impairment’ are very important. It means the diminishing of the quality or
strength of the premises or the construction which is of such a nature that
decreases the value or utility of the building.

Also in the case of Suraj Prakash Chopra v. Baij Nath Dhawan30, following
points have been laid down:

i. The onus to prove the substantial damage is on the landlord.

ii. He has to prove that the construction was made by the tenant or any other
person and tenant has not stopped the person.
iii. Landlord has to prove by cogent evidence that the damage is substantial
and for this an expert can also be examined.
iv. Every construction generally does not impair the utility.
v. The impairment has to be seen from the point of landlord and not the
tenant.

SECTION 14(1) (K)

While creating leases, certain authorities like government, DDA, or MCD

imposes certain conditions upon the person who has been allotted the premises.
Legislature has enacted this Section to curb the unauthorised use of this premise
and also to enable the superior lessor to take back the leased land.

30
103 (2003) DLT 645.

18 | P a g e
 SUMMARY PROCEDURE

The Legislature with the intent to provide quick and simple procedure for
deciding the petitions on the ground of bonafide requirement and also under
Sections 14A, 14B, 14C or 14D introduced Section 25B by way of 1976
Amendment.

OBJECT

It was hoped that with the enactment of Section 25B frivolous defences would
not be raised and the landlords who were genuinely in need of premises for their
own need would be able to recover possession as expeditiously as possible.

PROCEDURE

Section 25B(1) provides that the procedure specified in this section are to be
followed in eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(e), 14A, 14B, 14C or 14D.

Section 25B (2) provides that the Controller to issue summons in the form
specified in Third Schedule.

Section 25B(3)(a) provided for service of summons and lays down that the
tenant can be saved summons by registered post and by publication in
newspaper in addition to and simultaneously with the ordinary mode of
services.

Section 25B (3)(b) (Deemed services) provides as to that when an

acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received
by the Controller or an endorsement by the postal employee is received that the
tenant or his agent has refused to receive summons, the Controller may declare
that there has been a valid service of summons.

Section 25B (4) provides as to that a tenant cannot contest unless he files an
affidavit which discloses defence within 15 days of service of summons. In
19 | P a g e
default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such
leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be
deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an
order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.

Section 25B(5) provides that if the affidavit by tenant discloses defence, then
the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to defend contest the application on
the ground specified in Section 14(1)€ or Section 14A.

Section 25B (6) says that hearing shall commence as early as possible.

Section 25B (7) mandates Controller to adopt and follow the practice and
procedure of Small Causes Court.

As per Section 25B (8) there is no provision of appeal. However, High Court
has the power of revision.

Under Section 25B (9) Rent Controller has the power of review.

In the case of Precision Steel Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan31, the SC held that
Section 25B is narrower than Order 37, CPC and this must be liberally
construed and properly applied in the prescribed manners. SC made the
following observations:

1. On combined reading of Section 14(1) (e), Section 25B(1) and (4), it

emerges that unless tenant obtains the leave to defend, he is deemed to
have admitted the averment made by landlord.
2. After filing of affidavit by tenant, the jurisdiction of Controller is
confined to considering affidavit of tenant and rejoinder affidavit of
landlord, if any.

31
AIR 1982 SC 1518.

20 | P a g e
 3. If affidavit of tenant disclosed any defence, it is obligatory upon the
Controller to grant leave whether it is proved later or not, is immaterial.
The stages of proof are yet to come.
4. This is a harsh procedure and weighed against the tenant.

Section 25B is mandatory and if no application for leave to defend is filed it is

obligatory for the Rent Controller to accept the statements made by the owner
landlord and order eviction.

21 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES/REPORTS

1. Dev Satvik, Rent Control Laws in India A Critical Analysis, NIUA WP 06-04
2. Ojha, Shraddha, Protection against eviction and fixation of fair rent, available at :
http://legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=510
3. PRS Legislative Research. (2012)The land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Bill, 2011 Accessed on 16th August 2012 at http://
www.prsindia.org/bulltrack/theland-acquisition-rehabilitation-and-resettlement-bill-
2011-1978.
4. India Infrastructure Report 2009.
5. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Government of India.

BOOKS

1. Madabhushi Sridhar, Unfair rent Uncontrolable Control, (Hyderabad: Asia Law

House) 2009
2. V.P. Sarthi, Law of Transfer of Property, (Lucknow: Eastern Book Co.) 2005
3. Dhru, Kelly A (2010). Acquisition of land for development projects in India: The
Road Ahead. Research Foundation for Governance in India.
4. Morris, Sebastian and Pandey, Ajay, (2007). Towards Reform of Land Acquisition
Framework in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 2 June, Vol 42, No. 22.
5. Saxena, K. B. (2011). Rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced persons. Chapter
three in Development –Induced Displacement, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in
India. Routledge Contemporary South Asia.
6. Vaswani, K., V. Dhagamwar, and E. Thukral. (1997): The Land Acquisition Act
and You, Multiple Action Research Group (MARG), Delhi.

ONLINE ARTICLES/E-JOURNALS/ WEBSITES

 http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#box%201
 http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html
 http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#box%201
 http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html
 www.arts.cornell.edu/econ/cae/RentControl.PD

22 | P a g e