LL. B. V Term: Paper - LB - 5033 - Rent Control and Slum Clearance

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

LL. B.

V Term
Paper – LB - 5033 - Rent Control and Slum Clearance

Prescribed Legislations:
1. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
2. The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956
3. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995
4. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
5. The Indian Easements Act, 1882

Prescribed Books:
1. G.C. Bharuka (Rev.), Mulla’s The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
(10th ed., 2006)
2. Jaspal Singh, Delhi Rent Control Act (6th ed., 2007)
3. Rameshwar Dial and Adarsh, Law of Rent Control in Delhi
(2nd ed., 2005)

PART - I
General
Lease, License – Meaning; Distinction between Lease and License; Relevance of the
distinction to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Tenancy by holding over, Notice for termination of tenancy under Transfer of
Property Act, 1882
1. Associated Hotels v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262 1
2. M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 7
3. C.M. Beena v. P.N. Ramachandra Rao, AIR 2004 SC 2103 13
4. Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himat Lal Jamnadas Dani,
AIR 1972 SC 819 18
5. V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979) 4 SCC 214 24
ii

PART - II
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

(A) Definitions; Premises exempted from the applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958;
Meaning and scope of contractual and statutory tenancies
6. Mohan Lal v. Shri Krishan, 1977 (2) RCJ 505
7. Anand Niwas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi (1964) 4 SCR 892 36
8. Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Kishan (1973) 1 SCR 850
9. Damadi Lal v. Paras Ram, AIR 1976 SC 2229
10. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 796 41
11. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.
(2005) 1 SCC 705 62
12. D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 104
13. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. P.S. Jain Co. Ltd., 57 (1995) DLT 131 69
14. Sangat Singh v. Chaudhary P.N. Behl, AIR 1970 SC 812

(B) Control of Rent; Meaning, Scope and Applicability of Standard Rent

15. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., AIR 1985 SC 339


16. Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) v. Union of India
95 (2002) DLT 508 72

PART - III
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(A) Grounds of eviction
Non - Payment of Rent / Arrears of Rent [Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause (a)]
17. Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash (1980) 3 SCC 610
18. Hem Chand v. D.C.M. (1977) 3 SCC 483
19. Ram Murti v. Bholanath, AIR 1984 SC 1392 84
20. Jagannath v. Ram Kishan Das, AIR 1985 SC 265 91
21. Kamla Devi (Smt) v. Vasdev, AIR 1995 SC 985 96
22. Jain Motor Car Co., Delhi v. Swayam Prabha Jain (Smt),
AIR 1996 SC 2951

Sub– letting the rented premises [Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause (b)]

23. G.K. Bhatnagar v. Abdul Alim (2002) 9 SCC 516 102


24. Mrs. Kapil Bhargava v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal, 93 (2001) DLT 65
25. South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1442
iii

Impermissible use of the rented premises [Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause (c)]

26. Pushpa Devi v. Om Prakash, 1979 Rajdhani LR 441


27. Telu Ram v. Om Parkash Garg, P & H 1971 RCJ 1
28. Santram v. Rajinder Lal, 1979 SC (1) RCJ 13 105

Non – occupation of rented premises by the tenant [Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause (d)]
29. Baldev Sahai Bagla v. R.C. Bhasin, AIR 1982 SC 1091 108

Bona fide requirement of the rented premises by the landlord [Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause
(e) read with Section 25-B].
30. Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, AIR 1968 SC 438 114
31. Precision Steel and Engg. Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal,
AIR 1982 SC 1518 117
32. V.S. Talwar v. Prem Chandra Sharma, AIR 1984 SC 664 136
33. Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava , AIR 1984 SC 967 140
34. Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, 2008 (6) SCALE 325 145
35. V.K. Bhandari v. Sheikh Mohd. Yahya 158 (2009) DLT 124 161
36. Shri Ramesh Ahuja v. Shri Ram Nath Jain, 158 (2009) DLT 347 165

Tenant building own premises, acquiring vacant possession or allotment of a residence


[Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause (h) and clause (hh)]

37. Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Gayatri Devi, AIR 1987 SC 2016 168

Use of rented premises in violation of conditions of lease stipulated by D.D.A./ M.C.D.


[Section 14 (1), Proviso, Clause (k)]
38. S. P. Arora v. Ajit Singh, 1970 RCR 628 174
39. Faqir Chand v. Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot, AIR 1973 SC 921 180
40. Dr. K. Madan v. Krishnawati (Smt), AIR 1997 SC 579 185
41. Shri Munshi Ram v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2623 191
42. M/s. Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Smt. Laxmi Devi, AIR 2002 SC 2554

(B) Recovery of possession in case of limited period tenancy [Section 21]


43. Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, AIR 1987 SC 1986 195
44. Pukhraj Jain v. Padma Kashyap, AIR 1990 SC 77 206
45. Shrisht Dhavan (Smt) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555

(C) Remedy against cutting off or withholding essential supply or service [section 45]
46. Smt. Veera Rai v. S.P. Sachdeva, AIR 1985 Del. 300
iv

PART – IV
The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance ) Act, 1956

Impact of the Act on D.R.C.A.; Proceedings for eviction of tenant and role of Competent
Authority

47. Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi,
AIR 1961 SC 1602
48. C.R. Abrol v. Administrator under the Slum Areas (1970)
RCJ 899 209
49. Lal Chand (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Radha Krishan, AIR 1977 SC 789 219
50. Punnu Ram v. Chiranji Lal Gupta (Dead) by L.Rs.,
AIR 1999 SC 1094 226

IMPORTANT NOTE:
1. The cases/topics mentioned above are not exhaustive. The teachers teaching the course
shall be at liberty to add new cases/topics.
2. The students are required to study the legislations as amended from time to time and
consult the latest editions of books.
3. The question paper shall include one compulsory question. The question papers set for the
examinations held during 2007-08 and 2008-09 are printed below for guidance of the
students.
*****

LL.B. V Term Examinations, December, 2008

Note: Answer five question including Question No. 1 which is compulsory.


All questions carry equal marks.
1. Attempt briefly any four of the following:
(a) Explain Tenancy by Holding Over;
(b) Discuss the complete list of exemptions from the purview of DRCA,1958;
(c) When can a petition under S.14(1)(h) of DRCA, 1958 be filed against the
tenant?
(d) What are the essential ingredients of tenancy for limited period?
(e) Is permission from competent authority necessary under the Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for filing an eviction petition under
section 14(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958?
2. “The substance of a document is more important than its form; the real test for
ascertaining the document is the intention of parties.” Discus the above statement to
understand the concept of lease as essential for the purpose of DRCA, 1958.
v

3. Write short notes on the following:


(a) Requirement of notice under Sec. 106 TPA before a petition for eviction under
DRCA, 1956.
(b) Heritability of statutory Tenancy.
4. (a) X, a tenant of residential premises in Delhi at a rent of Rs. 2,500 in the year 2001,
lived with his parents and sister. After 5 years, X migrated to Australia with his wife
and children permanently. Meanwhile, rent rendered by his parents and sister was not
accepted by landlord. In the year 2007, the landlord filed eviction petition under
Sec.14(1)(b) and (d) of DRCA, 1958 against the parents and sister. Will he succeed ?
Give reasons for your answer.
(b) Elaborate the circumstances in which a subtenant may be treated as tenant.
5. (a) Incidental use of residential premises for commercial purposes, with the consent of
landlord, brings a case outside the purview of Cl (e) of S.14(1) DRCA, 1958.
Comment with case law.
(b) C1 (e) of S.14(1) of DRCA, 1958 has been criticized for being discriminatory in a
recent landmark judgement (Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, 2008(6) SCALE
325). Critically assess the above pronouncement.
6. Discuss the applicability of S. 14(1)(a) and allied provisions to the following illustrations:
(i) Landlord files eviction proceedings under S. 14(1)(a). An order for deposit of
rent under S. 15(1) is made. The tenant pays and landlord withdraws petition
due to a technical fault. Subsequently, on a default for a consecutive period of
three months, the landlord files a petition under S. 14(1)(a). He pleads the bar
of S. 14(2) as the controller allows the tenant to deposit rent under S. 15(1).
(ii) Landlord files eviction proceedings under S. 14(1)(a). There is delay in
payment of arrears of rent beyond the period prescribed under Section 15(1). In
the face of opposition by the landlord, the tenant pleads condonation of delay
under S. 15(7).
7. Discuss the difference in the applicability of Cl (c) and Cl (k) of S.14(1) of DRCA, 1958
with the help of decided cases. Can there be a valid plea of estoppel against Cl (k)?
Discuss the possibility of exclusion of Cl (c) by Cl (k).
8. (a) What consideration are relevant in the exercise of discretionary power of Competent
Authority in granting or refusing permission for eviction proceedings in relation to
premises falling under Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 ?
(b) Can the competent Authority decide the issue of relationship between landlord and
tenant?
*****
vi

LL.B. V Term (Supplementary) Examinations, May-June 2009

Note: Attempt five questions including Question No. 1 which is compulsory.


All questions carry equal marks.
1. Attempt briefly any four of the following:
(a) Sections 14(1)(h) and 14(1)(hh) of D.R.C. Act, 1958;
(b) Sub-letting as a ground of eviction;
(c) Tenancy by holding over;
(d) Summary procedure for eviction under Section 25B of D.R.C. Act, 1958;
(e) Creation of tenancy for a limited period.
2. Bring out the distinction between section 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(k) of the D.R.C. Act, 1958
with the help of judicial decisions. Can there be exclusion of 14(1)(c) by that of 14(1)k?
Explain.
3. A, lets his premises to B for residential purposes in 2004. B, with the consent of A,
converts one room in the premises into a shop. In the year 2006 A dies leaving behind his
window, two sons and a daughter. A’s widow files a suit of eviction in 2008 against B
under 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act, 1958. She claims that entire premises is required bonafide
for the use of herself and her children. Will she succeed? Decide keeping in view the
decision of the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, 2008(6) SCALE
325.
4. Discuss the heritability of the tenancy rights of a tenant both with respect to residential
premises and commercial premises under the D.R.C. Act, 1958. Point out the changes
brought about in the D.R.C. Act, 1995 regarding the heritability of tenancy rights of such
a tenant.
5. (a) A suit for eviction is filed by a landlord against a tenant under section 14(1)(a) of the
D.R.C. Act, 1958. The rent controller passes an order under section 15(1) of the Act,
requiring the tenant to deposit the rent. The tenant while going to deposit on the last
day of the limitation period under section 15(1) meets with an accident and is
hospitalized for a few days. The landlord claiming non-compliance of the order under
section 15(1) asks for the eviction of the tenant. The tenant on the other hand insists
for the condonation of delay. Decide with reference to case law.
(b) Discuss the circumstances under which a tenant can be permitted the benefit of
section 14(2) in a suit for his eviction under section 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act, 1958.
6. Examine the conditions which the Competent Authority must follow under section 19(4)
of Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 to grant permission for the eviction of a
tenant from premises situated in a slum area. State whether these conditions are
conditions in alternative or cumulative? Also, is such permission necessary if the eviction
proceedings are under sections 14(1)(e), 14A, 14B, 14C or 14D of the D.R.C. Act, 1958?
Discuss
7. “When sections 4, 6 and 9 of D.R.C. Act, 1958 were enacted, there may had been a
justification, but with the passage of time, these provisions have fallen foul of Articles 14,
vii

19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution due to changed circumstances. Even section 6A has
not been able to cure the defects.”
Do you agree with the above statement? Comment critically.
8. Write notes on any two of the following:
(a) Relevancy of distinction between lease and license to the provisions of D.R.C.
Act, 1958.
(b) Requirement of notice under section 106 of T.P.A. before filing a suit of eviction
under D.R.C. Act, 1958
(c) Premises exempted from the applicability of D.R.C. Act, 1958.

LL.B. V Term Examinations, December, 2010

Note: Attempt five questions including Question No. 1 which is compulsory.


All questions carry equal marks.
1. Attempt briefly any four of the following:
(a) Easement is “right in rem” and licence is “right in personam”.
(b) Irrevocability of a licence.
(c) Premises which are exempted from applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act.
(d) Limited period tenancy.
(e) Distinguish between “sublet, assigned and parted with the possession”.
2. (a) Distinguish between lease and license. Why is this distinction important?
(b) Examine whether the following agreement creates a lease or license:
An agreement was entered between hotel X and art of living teacher Mr. Z on
January, 2010, wherein Mr. Z was described as license and Mr. Z was to pay Rs. 9,600 as
annual license fee of one year for the use of room no. 203 in the hotel for conducting art
of living classes. He was allowed to put his own lock on the door of the room and can
also transfer his licence to any other art of living teachers.
3. “Statutory tenancy is heritable for both residential and commercial premises.” Discus the
same under DRC Act, 1958 in the light of relevant case laws.
4. (a) State the effects of non-compliance of an order passed by the rent controller u/s 15(1)
of DRC Act 1958 in a petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the said act.
(b) Elaborate the circumstances under which the rent controller may give benefit u/s
14(2) of DRC Act, 1958 to the tenant.
5. (a) Distinguish between sections 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(k) of the DRC Act, 1958.
(b) In the year 2001 Ram took a house from DDA on 33 years lease for Rs. One lakh for
residential purposes only and in default of the same the lease would be forfeited and
DDA would be entitled to take back the possession. However, Ram had let out the
house to Shyam in the year 2005 for commercial purposes for Rs. 3000 pm. In the
year 2006 the DDA called upon Ram to stop the misuse of the house and also
viii

threatened forfeiture if he failed to comply with the said demand. Ram accordingly
asked Shyam to stop using the house for commercial purposes but Shyam refused to
do so and thereupon Ram filed an eviction application against Shyam u/s 14(1)(k) of
DRC Act, 1958.
Discuss and decide.
6. (a) “A”, the tenant, has gone to Canada for three years and his brother and sister continue
to live in the tenanted house in Delhi. State whether a petition on behalf of the
landlord u/s 14(1)(d) of the DRC Act, 1958 is maintainable.
(b) Discuss the relevant provisions available (u/s 14-D) to a widow for immediate
possession.
7. “C” had purchased one flat in the year 1989 and had given that flat on lease for 10 years
to “Y” on rent @ Rs. 250 per month for Residential purposes only. “Y” was residing and
enjoying the property without the permission of “C” even after the lapse of lease period.
“C” was a governmental employee and had been living in governmental staff quarters
along with his family. “C: retired in the year 2009 and after the retirement he had to leave
the accommodation provided by the government and was forced to shift himself along
with 4 other family members to a rented accommodation. In 2010 “C” files petition u/s
14(1)(e) read along with Section 25-B of DRC Act.

Discuss the procedure laid down u/s 25-B and also the condition to be fulfilled for
obtaining the order of eviction u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958.
8. Write notes on any two of the following:
(a) Provision relating to unlawful subletting under DRC Act;
(b) Essential supply or service under section 45 DRC Act;
(c) Relevant considerations for exercise of discretionary power by competent
authority u/s 19 of Slum Area Act, 1956.

LL.B. V Term Supplementary Examinations, June-July, 2011

Note: Attempt five questions including Question No. 1 which is compulsory.


All questions carry equal marks.
1. Attempt briefly any four of the following:
(a) Distinguish the concept of tenancy by holding over statutory tenancy.
(b) Give a list of premises that are exempted from the applicability of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958.
(c) Requirement of notice for terminations of tenancy under Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958.
(d) Proviso (d) to S. 14(1) as a ground of eviction.
(e) Definition of Landlord under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
ix

2. State the law relating to heritability of tenancy in case of the death of the statutory
tenancy in respect of
(a) Residential premises
(b) Commercial premises
Discuss with the help for relevant case law.
3. (a) The premises in dispute where built on lease hold land. One of the terms, of the lease
between the landlord and the government was that the building to be put up on the
eland would be used for the purpose of residential cottage. Landlord let out the same
for running of a boarding and lodging house. The tenant continued this use not
withstanding previous notice. Landlord claimed eviction under proviso (k) to S.
14(1). Will landlord succeed? Decide in the light of relevant case laws.
(b) Write a note on ‘Non Occupancy’ as a ground of eviction.
4. (a) “Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from
each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility
has to be shown.” Comment with reference to the special procedure for trial of action
brought under section 14A and 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
(b) A let out premises in suit to B for a period of three years by virtue of permission
granted under Section 21 of D.R.C.A. 1958. After the expiry of the said period, A
filed another application seeking permission to create limited tenancy for a period of
2 years in favour of B again, without mentioning the factum of having already created
a limited tenancy in the his favour. B appeared before the Rent controller and made a
statement on oath that he was willing to take the premises on lease for limited
permission is illegal and void since the source was obtained by a by concealment of
material facts. Decide the objections.
5. (a) State the effects of non-compliance of an order passed by the rent controller u/s 15(1)
of DRC Act 1958 in a petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the said act.
(b) Elaborate the circumstances under which the rent controller may give benefit u/s
14(2) of DRC Act, 1958 to the tenant.
5. Answer any two of the following:
(a) Distinguish between subletting, assignment and parting with possession.
(b) Change of uber as a ground. It must be misuse of a nature specififed in 14(5).
Elaborate.
(c) Sections 14(1)(4) & 14(1) (44) of DRCA, 1958.
6. A the owner of a double storey building, lets the same to B at a monthly rent of Rs.
1200/- for use as residence-cum-commercial (office). B uses the ground floor portion for
his office and the first floor portion for residence. After three years A bonafide requires
aleast one floor of the building. A makes an application before the Rent Controller for an
order for recovery of possession of the whole of the house, or in alternative for the first
floor u/s. 14(1)(e) B, the tenant, Contends that the petition shold be dismissed as the
house was let to him for residence-cum-office.
x

Decide the applications keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Satyawati Sharma vs. U.O.I.
7. Explaining the procedure to be followed in order to avail eviction on the ground of ‘Non
payment of rent’ throw light on the following two aspects.
— Contoller’s power to condone default under section 15(7) and
— Circumstances under which a tenant can be said to have claimed the benefit under
section 14(2) DRCA, 1958
8. Section 19(4) mention certain factors which are required to be considered by the
competent authority while granting or effusing to grant the permission asked for. State
those factors and also state whether such permission is necessary if the eviction
proceeding and under section 14(1)(a), 14A-14D of DRCA, 1958.
xi

LL.B. V Term

Rent Control and Slum Clearance

Cases Selected and Edited by


Rajiv Khanna
A.K. Batra

FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, DELHI-110 007
July, 2011

You might also like