Rent control Act

Landlaw chp 4

Control on eviction of Tenants

Authorities under Rent Control Act

Authorized Officer –Maintenance of register and notice of

vacancy; Letting the premises.
Rent Controller – to decide eviction, implementing
authority of important provisions of law.
Rent Tribunal – determines fair rent and fixation of rent,
Civil Judge Sr. Division
Appellate Board – District Judge within the district.
Administrative Tribunal
High Court
Supreme Court
Control on eviction
• Sec 21 – 32 mentions the grounds & procedure of the tenant by the LL

• LL wants to evict- apply to Rent controller – reasonable opportunity- pass

an order
Sec 21- Bar on eviction of tenants
• Tenant cant be evicted only as per the provisions of this chp
• In two circumstances the court will interfere :
a) When the tenant denies the title of the LL
b) When the tenant claims permanent tenancy

Amdnt of 2013
In any case of eviction the only place which has the jurisdiction to try
such matter is the Civil court as per the amdt and no eviction can be
entertained by the rent controller.
 Case Sumati Naik
v/s Dilip Faterpekar
• The Rent controller held that the denial of the LL title was not bonafide
in nature & hence the tenant can be evicted for non payment of rent.
• In an appeal, the administrative tribunal upheld the decision of the rent
controller,
• The HC observed that if the tenant is denying the relationship with the
LL , then the rent controller does not have the jurisdiction to try such
matter & the only place which has the jurisdiction to look into the
matter is the civil court.
• The HC further observed that the findings of the rent controller and the
Administrative tribunal are arbitrary and perverse. Hence the decision
was set aside.
It was held that the burden of proving that there exist a primafacie
relationship of LL and tenant lies on the LL.
The order where the court decides the matter on evidence of the
tenant was incorrect.
Case : Nelson Augusto Furtado
V/S Caetano Picardo
• In this case the rent controller observed that the denial of the tenant is
bonafide in nature and hence the matter could be tried by the civil
court , hence the LL preferred an appeal to the administrative tribunal.
• The Administrative tribunal also upheld the decision of the rent
controller , hence the LL appealed to the HC
• The HC observed that the rent controller only took the evidences from
the tenant and did not give an opportunity to the LL &hence the
decision of denial is not correctly founded.
• Hence the HC directed the matter to be sent back to the rent controller
to hear and decide the claim appropriately
Proviso to sec 21 (2013 amdt)

• As per this the controller should decide the claim or denial if bonafide
and pass a decree for eviction on any grounds mentioned in the Act
but this will not render the forfeiture of the lease or the claim to be
unfounded.
 Case: Catrina fdes
v/s Victoria Gonsalves
• Based on the recording of the rent controller, denial or claim of the
permanent right of tenancy not to be bonafide , the LL is entitled to
sue for eviction.
 Case : Avadhut Deuba desai
v/s Administrative tribunal
• In this case the respondents case was that they were not the tenants
of the premises.
• The court held that the rent controller & the Administrative tribunal
had misconstrued the facts and the law by interpreting that the
tenants has denied the title of the LL,
• The actual fact though was that the respondents case was that they
had nothing to do with the tenanted premises.
 Case: George Tharangan
v/s Olga Viegas & ors

• The LL was able to prove that the tenant was in illegal occupation of
the suit premises and he never intended to create tenancy right in
favour of the tenant.

• While granting the suit for eviction and mandatory injunction, it was
held that the LL is also entitled to mesne profits.