Effect of Rent Control

Rent Control, like most regulations, distorts markets by imposing factors to mismatch supply and demand. The result is scarcity in what consumers really want, and that results in rising prices, the rent increases and pagidi (Key money) system evolves. The simple presence of rent control, produces shortage of rental housing homes in any area than it would otherwise experience.
If a state has moderate rent control, it will have a moderate housing shortage; if it has severe rent control, it will have a severe housing shortage. The more rent control a state has, the worse the housing crisis becomes, and the worse the housing crisis becomes, the more people demand that rent control be expanded and enforced more severely. Thus the problem increase in multiple progression. The rent control will not solve the problem, but de-regulating will not solve the problem all of a sudden, it will take time to build new buildings and remove the fear factor from the minds of building owners and prospective building owners.
Although rent control is supposed to prevent shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values, it does the opposite. The usual result of rent control is to split the housing market in two. Some people get great deals while others face housing shortages and higher-than-market prices.” The tenants who managed to get rent-controlled units were paying 20-50 percent below market rate of rent, others who want a building on rent has to pay higher rent than normal rate and has to pay huge key money, the building owners demand this due to fear of litigation that follows and the delay it makes.
Under all other welfare systems, the subsidy is underwritten by the public at-large, through taxes. Thus, if the burden becomes too heavy, people are likely to object. But because rent control taxes only landlords – who are always a small minority of the community – no one pays much attention to their situation, their way of taxation is the higher rate of rent and key money.
Landlords also have the option of cutting their own personal profits., some may elect to cover costs by cutting down on maintenance, resulting in deterioration of existing stock in the rental market. The ultimate victims are not landlords or tenants, but a city’s housing stock. Forced to lose money, landlords will eventually find ways to withdraw their property from the market, or they will allow their property to deteriorate until it is worth only what tenants are paying for it. Since the poor are most dependent on rental housing, they are the ultimate victims of the housing crisis.
As problems induced by rent-control progressed the number of vacant buildings, both residential and non-residential, increases.
In areas with rent control there is an ongoing war between landlords and tenants; lawyer-tenants exploit blue-collar landlords through tricky legal procedures, and landlords allow their unprofitable, unsalable buildings to deteriorate. Rent control is the product of the tyranny of the majority that prevent people from exercising their right to built, buy, let and sell in a free market.

Rent Control Act and an Economic analysis of its impact in Kerala

Rent control: short-term bad, long-term worse

(The above link guides you to the full article)

The astonishing thing about rent control is that economic empirical analysis — in other words, real experience — demonstrates that there is no policy case for it.

THE KERALA BUILDINGS (LEASE, STANDARD RENT AND OTHER FACILITIES) ACT, 2013

An Act to regulate the leasing of buildings, to control the rent and protect the rights of the landlords and the tenants of such buildings in the State of Kerala.
Preamble.– WHEREAS, it is expedient to regulate the leasing of buildings, to control the rent and to protect the rights of the landlords and the tenants of such buildings in the State of Kerala, to provide for the adjudication of disputes and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto;
BE it enacted in the Sixty-second year of the Republic of India, as follows:-
1. Short title, extent and commencement.– This Act may be called the Kerala Buildings (Lease, Standard Rent and Other Facilities) Act, 2013.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Kerala.
(3) It shall come into force at once.
2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “Appellate Authority” means the Appellate Authority constituted under section 40;
(b) “building” means any building, flat or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to  be let separately for residential or nonresidential purpose and includes,-
(i) the gardens, grounds, wells, tanks and structures, if any, appurtenant to such building, hut, or part of such building or hut, or land, let or to be let along with such buildings, flat or hut;
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building, flat or hut and part of a building, flat or hut;
(iii) any fittings or machinery belonging to the landlord, affixed to or installed in such building, flat or part of such building or flat and intended to be used by the tenant for or in connection with the purpose for which such building, flat or part of such building or flat is let or to be let, but does not include a room
in a hotel or boarding house;
(c) “Inspector” means an officer appointed under section 35 to perform the functions of the Inspector under this Act;
(d) “land” means a vacant land or land with building which is let or to be let for any use including the parking of vehicles or for the staking or storage facilities;
(e) “landlord” or “building owner” means a person who, is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any building, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, where the building is let to a tenant;
(f) “Local Self Government Institutions” means a town panchayat or a municipal council or a municipal corporation constituted under section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994) or a Village Panchayat constituted under section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994);
(g) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(h) “rent” means the amount paid as rent as agreed to by the landlord or building owner and the tenant under an agreement;

(i) “Rent Control Court” means the court constituted under section 34;
(j) “standard rent” in relation to any building means the rent fixed by the Rent Control Court under the provisions of this Act;
(k) “security deposit” means any payment, fee, deposit or charge to be used for any purpose including the recovery of rent defaults, repairing charges for the damage caused by the tenant or for any other item specified in the Tenancy Agreement.
(l) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or on whose behalf the rent of any building is or but for a special agreement, would be payable and includes,-
(i) the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant; and
(ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy.
(m) “Tenancy Agreement” means an agreement in writing between a landlord and a tenant for the use and the occupancy of a building for residential or non-residential purpose on agreed terms and conditions.
(n) “Tenancy Period” means the period for which the building has been let to the tenant by the landlord;
(o) “Tenantable repairs” means such repairs which shall keep the building in the same condition in which it was let out except for the normal wear and tear;
(p) “Valuer” means an officer appointed under section 36 of the Act;
3. Landlord and tenant to furnish particulars.– (1) Every landlord and every tenant of a building shall furnish, a statement in writing signed by both, to the Secretary of a Local Self Government Institution wherein the building is situate containing the details of tenancy agreement in respect of the building within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the tenancy agreement along with a filing fee of fifty rupees.
(2) Where one of the parties alone signs, he shall, before filing the statement under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the same to the other party by registered post with acknowledgement due.
(3) On receipt of the statement, the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution shall enter or cause to enter the details of the tenancy in a register maintained for that purpose noting the names of the landlord, tenant, the terms and conditions of the tenancy and the date on which it was filed, with proper attestation.
(4) The Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution, on application made in this behalf and on payment of such fee as may, from time to time, be fixed by the Local Self Government Institution, issue to the applicant a certified copy of the extract from the property tax or house tax assessment register of the Local
Self Government Institution, showing the rental value of the building in respect of which application has been made for the period specified in the application.
(5) The certified copy issued under sub-section(4) shall be received as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under this Act.
4. Inheritance of tenancy.– (1) From the date of death of a tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve upon his successors in the following order, namely:-
(a) Spouse;
(b) Children;
(c) Parents;
(d) Daughter-in-law, being the widow of his predeceased son:
Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living in the building with the deceased tenant as a member of his family upto the date of his death and was wholly dependent on the deceased tenant and the successor does not own or occupy a building in the same locality.
(2) If a person, being a successor, mentioned in subsection

(1) was ordinarily living in the building with the deceased tenant but was not dependent on him on the date of his death or he or his spouse or any of his dependent children is owning or occupying a residential building in the locality, such successor shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant and on the
expiry of that period or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession of the building shall become extinguished:
Provided that the right of any successor to continue in possession of the building becomes extinguished, such extinguishment shall not affect the right of any other successor of the same category to continue in possession of the building and if there is no other successor of the same category, the right to continue in possession of the building shall not, on such extinguishment, pass on to any other successor.
(3) The right of every successor referred to in sub-section(1) to continue in possession of the building as a tenant shall be strictly personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve upon any of his heirs.
(4) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall apply to a non-residential building and the vacant possession of such building shall be delivered to the landlord within one year,-
(i) of the death of the tenant;
(ii) of the dissolution of the firm, in case the tenant is a firm;
(iii) of the winding up of the company, in case the tenant is a company;
(iv) of the dissolution of the corporate body other than a company, in case the tenant is such a corporate body.
5. Rent Payable.– The rent payable in relation to a building shall be,-
(a) the rent agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant; or
(b) the standard rent fixed by the Rent Control Court under section 8:
Provided that if the tenancy extends beyond a period of three years, the rent payable shall be increased by twenty per cent in every three years.
6. Other Charges Payable.– (1) A tenant shall in addition to the rent payable pay the following charges to the landlord, namely:-
(a) charges for the amenities as agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant, subject to a maximum of fifteen per cent of the rent;
(b) maintenance charges at the rate of ten per cent of the rent payable.
(2) The landlord shall be, unless otherwise agreed, entitled to recover from the tenant the amount paid by him towards charges for electricity or water consumed or the charges, if any, payable by the tenant or any charges paid to the Local Self Government Institutions or other authority.
7. Revision of rent in certain cases.- (1) Where a landlord has at any time, before the commencement of this Act, with or without the approval of the tenant or after the commencement of this Act, with the writt`en approval of the tenant, incurred expenditure for any improvement, addition or structural alteration in the building, not being expenditure on decoration or tenantable repairs necessary or usual for such building and the cost of that improvement, addition or alteration has not been taken into account in determining the rent of the building, the landlord may increase the rent per year by an amount not exceeding thirty per cent of such cost.
(2) Where a landlord intends to increase the rent of any building under sub-section (1), he shall give the tenant a notice of his intention to do so and such increase shall become due only in respect of the period of the tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given.
(3) Every notice under sub-section (2) shall be in writing signed by or on behalf of the landlord and given in the manner provided under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882).
(4) Where, after the rent of a building has been fixed under the provisions of this Act or agreed upon, there has been a decrease or diminution in the accommodation or amenities provided in such building, the tenant may claim a reduction in the rent.
8. Rent Control Court to fix standard rent etc.– (1) The Rent Control Court shall, on an application made to it in this behalf, in the prescribed manner, in respect of any building,-
(i) fix the standard rent for such building after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit taking into consideration all evidentiary materials produced by both the parties and also the report of the valuer.
(ii) revise the rent as per the provisions of sections 5 and 7.
(2) the report of the valuer under sub-section(1) shall contain the details of all the facts taken note of by the valuer while inspecting the building and his reasons for his conclusion regarding the reasonable amount of rent the building may fetch on the date of his visit and the report shall only be considered as piece of evidence and not a conclusive one.
(3) In fixing the standard rent of any building part of which has been lawfully sub-let, the Rent Control Court may also fix the standard rent of such part so sub-let.
(4) The standard rent shall in all cases be fixed for a period of twelve months:
Provided that where any building is let or re-let for a period of less than twelve months, the standard rent for such tenancy shall bear the same proportion to the annual rent as the period of tenancy bears to twelve months.
(5) In fixing the standard rent of any building under this section, the Rent Control Court shall fix the standard rent thereof in its unfurnished condition and shall also determine an additional charge to be payable on account of any fittings or furniture supplied by the landlord.
(6) The Rent Control Court may, while fixing the standard rent or the increase or decrease in rent or other charges payable, order for payment of the arrears of amount due by the tenant to the landlord or landlord to the tenant in such number of instalments within a time to be fixed by the Rent Control Court.
9. Fixation of interim rent.- If an application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the increase or decrease of such rent is made under section 8, the Rent Control Court shall, as expeditiously as possible, make an order specifying the amount of the rent or the lawful increase or decrease pending final decision on the application and shall appoint the date from which the rent or lawful increase or decrease so specified shall have effect.
10. Landlord to claim or receive agreed rent, other charges, if any, and security deposit or rent fixed by the Rent Control Court.– The landlord shall not claim, receive or stipulate for the payment other than,-
(i) the rent, other charges and security deposit as agreed to between the landlord and the tenant; (ii) the rent and other charges, if any, fixed by the Rent Control Court:
Provided that the landlord may receive or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding six months’ rent by way of security deposit.
11. Payment of Rent.- Every tenant shall pay rent and other charges, if any, payable within the time fixed in the agreement or in the absence of such stipulation, by the fifteenth day of the succeeding month of the month for which it is payable and where any default occurs in the payment of  rent and other charges, if any, the tenant shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date on which such payment of rent and other charges payable became due to the date on which it is paid.
12. Receipt to be given for the rent paid.– (1) Every tenant who makes payment of rent or other charges payable or security deposit to his landlord shall be entitled to obtain forthwith a written receipt for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent.
(2) Where the landlord or his authorised agent refuses or neglects to deliver to the tenant the receipt under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court shall, on an application filed in this behalf by the tenant, within two months from the date of payment and after hearing the landlord or his authorised agent, pass an order directing the landlord or his authorised agent to pay to the tenant, by way of damages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent or other charges paid by the tenant and the costs of the application and shall also grant a  certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent or other charges paid.
(3) Where the landlord or his authorised agent refuses to accept or evades the receipt of rent and other charges payable to him the tenant shall, by notice in writing, require the landlord to supply him the particulars of his bank account in the locality in which the tenant shall deposit the rent and other charges payable to the landlord.
(4) Where the landlord does not supply the particulars of bank account, the tenant shall remit the rent and the other charges payable to the landlord, from time to time, through money order or any other lawful mode of payment after deducting the service charges.
13. Deposit of rent by the tenant.- (1) Where the landlord does not accept the rent and other charges, if any, payable by the tenant as provided in section 11 or section 12 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt under section 12 or where there is a bonafide doubt as to the person to whom the rent is payable, the tenant shall deposit such rent and other changes, if any, payable with the Rent
Control Court through an application in the prescribed manner.
(2) On deposit of the rent and other charges, if any, payable, the Rent Control Court shall send, in the prescribed manner, a copy of the application to the landlord or the persons claiming to be entitled to the rent and other charges, payable with an endorsement of the date of the deposit.
(3) Where an application is made for the withdrawal of any deposit of rent and other charges, if any, payable, the Rent Control Court shall, on being satisfied that the applicant is the person entitled to receive the rent and other charges deposited, order the amount of the rent and other charges to be paid to the applicant, in the prescribed manner:
Provided that no order for payment of any deposit of rent and other charges payable shall be made by the Rent Control Court under this sub-section without giving all the persons named by the tenant in his application under sub-section (1) as claiming to be entitled to payment of such rent and other charges payable, an opportunity of being heard and such order shall be without prejudice to the rights of such persons to receive such rent and other charges payable as decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) Where any statement contained in an application filed by the tenant under sub-section (1) is contrary to the facts or incorrect, the landlord may file a petition before the Rent Control Court within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice of deposit.
(5) On receipt of the petition under sub-section (4), the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard and on being satisfied that the statements in the petition are materially incorrect may impose on the tenant an amount which may extend to two months’ rent as fine and may order that a sum out of the fine imposed be paid to the landlord as compensation in addition to the arrears of rent and other charges deposited.
(6) The Rent Control Court may, on a petition filed by the tenant, after giving an opportunity of being heard and on being satisfied that the landlord, without any reasonable cause, refused to accept the rent and other charges payable, though tendered to him, within the time referred to in section 11, impose on the landlord an amount which may extend to two months’ rent as fine and may further order that a sum out of the fine imposed be paid to the tenant as compensation.
14. Time limit for deposit of rent and consequences of incorrect particulars in the application for deposit.– (1) No rent deposited under section 13 shall be considered to have been validly deposited under the said section, unless the deposit is made within twenty-one days from the date specified under section 11 for the payment of the rent.
(2) No such deposit shall be considered to have been validly made, if the tenant willfully makes any false statement in his application for depositing the rent, unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the date of filing the application for the recovery of possession of the building from the tenant.
(3) Where the rent is deposited within the time limit specified under sub-section (1) and does not cease to be valid deposit for the reason mentioned in sub-section (2), the deposit shall constitute payment of rent to the landlord, as if the amount deposited had been validly tendered.
15. Saving as to the acceptance of rent and other charges payable and forfeiture of deposit.– (1) The withdrawal of rent and other charges, if any, payable, deposited under section 13, shall not operate as an admission of the correctness of the rate of rent and other charges payable during the period of default, the amount due, or of any other facts stated in the tenant’s application for depositing the rent and other charges payable under the said section.
(2) Where any rent and other charges payable and deposited are not withdrawn, before the expiration of five years from the date of sending the notice of deposit, by the landlord or by the person entitled to receive such rent and other charges payable shall be forfeited to Government by an order made by the Rent Control Court.
(3) Before passing an order of forfeiture, the Rent Control Court shall give notice to the landlord or to the person entitled to receive the rent and other charges in deposit by registered post at the last known address of such landlord or person and shall also publish the notice in the office of the Rent Control Court and in any local newspaper.
16. Period of Tenancy.– (1) The period of tenancy in respect of a building shall be the period agreed to between the landlord and the tenant unless terminated otherwise.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court , where the period of tenancy in respect of any existing tenancy of a building is over before the commencement of this Act and no proceedings for eviction are pending before any Court and the tenant is continuing in possession of the building, then the period of tenancy in such case shall continue upto six months from the date of commencement of this Act:
Provided that at any time before the said period, the landlord and the tenant may by a written agreement extend the period of tenancy.
(3) It shall be the duty of the tenant to hand over the physical vacant possession of the building to the landlord or his authorised agent immediately after the period of tenancy is over or terminated otherwise.
17. Duties of landlord.– (1) Subject to any agreement in writing to the contrary, every landlord shall be bound to keep the building in good and tenantable repairs.
(2) Where any repairs, without which the building are not habitable or usable and if the landlord neglects or fails to make them within a period of three months after issuing notice in writing, the tenant shall apply to the Rent Control Court for permission to make such repairs himself and shall submit to the Rent Control Court an estimate of the cost of such repairs and thereupon, the Rent Control Court shall after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and after considering such estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the tenant to make such repairs at such cost as may be specified in the order and it shall thereafter be lawful for the tenant to make such repairs himself and to deduct the cost thereof, which shall in no case exceed the amount so specified, from the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord :
Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable from rent in an year shall not exceed one-half of the rent payable by the tenant for that year and any amount remaining not recovered in that year shall be deducted or recovered from rent in the subsequent years at the rate of not more than twenty-five percent of the rent for a month:
Provided further that where there are more than one tenant in a building owned by a landlord, the tenants thereof shall jointly carry out the repairs and share the expenses proportionately.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall apply to a building which,-
(a) at the time of letting out was not habitable or usable except with undue inconvenience and the tenant had agreed to take the same in that condition,
(b) after being let out was caused by the tenant to be not habitable or useable except with undue inconvenience.
(4) It shall be the duty of every landlord of a building to send a communication by registered post with acknowledgement due to the nearest police station within whose jurisdiction the said building is situate incorporating the particulars of the building, name of the landlord, age, father’s name, date of commencement of the period of tenancy, address and details of employment of the tenant along with a photostat copy of the identity proof of the tenant.
(5) The communication under sub-section (4) shall be forwarded within one month from the date of commencement of the period of tenancy
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, the identity proof means any document such as Ration Card, Income Tax PAN Card, Driving Licence, Employment Identity Card in the case of Government Employees or any other identity issued by the Central or the State Government.
(6) A register containing the details of the buildings occupied by the tenants together with other particulars mentioned in subsection (4) shall be maintained in each police station within the jurisdiction of which such building is situate.
(7) Any landlord who fails to furnish the information required under sub-section (4) shall on conviction be punished with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees for the first offence and for the subsequent offence a simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
18. Duties of tenant.- (1) Every tenant shall be bound to keep the building in good and tenantable repairs.
(2) The tenant shall allow the landlord or a person authorised by him to enter and inspect the building, in the prescribed manner.
(3) The tenant shall make good all damage caused to the building by his negligence within three months of being informed in writing to do so by the landlord failing which the landlord shall apply to the Rent Control Court for permission to make good the said damage and the Rent Control Court may decide the matter after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard and after considering the estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the landlord to make such repairs at such cost as shall be specified in the order, and it shall thereafter be lawful for the landlord to make such repairs and to recover the cost of such repairs from the tenant, which shall in no case exceed the amount so specified.
(4) The tenant shall hand over the possession of the building on termination of tenancy in the same condition, except for the normal wear and tear, when it was handed over to him at the beginning of such tenancy and in case where damage have been caused, not being the damage caused by force majeure, the tenant shall make good the damage caused to the building failing which the landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Court may decide the matter in the manner provided in subsection (3).
(5) The tenant shall not, during the subsistence of tenancy or thereafter, demolish any improvement or alteration other than any fixture of a removable nature, without the permission of the landlord failing which such demolition or alteration shall be deemed to be a damage caused by such tenant under sub-section (3) and shall be dealt with in the manner provided in the said sub-section.
(6) The tenant shall vacate and hand over the building to the landlord, if the tenant is already in possession of a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or panchayat.
19. Cutting off or withholding essential supply or services.– (1) No landlord, either by himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf, shall without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or services enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building let out to him.
(2) Where a landlord contravenes the provisions of subsection (1), the tenant may make an application, in the prescribed form, to the Rent Control Court complaining of such contravention.
(3) Where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the essential supply or services was cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to vacate the building or to pay an enhanced rent, the Rent Control Court shall pass an interim order, without giving notice to the landlord, directing him to restore the amenities immediately, pending enquiry referred to in sub-section (4).
(4) Where the Rent Control Court on enquiry, finds that the essential supply or services enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building was cut off or withheld by the landlord, without just and sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service.
(5) The Rent Control Court may, in its discretion, order a compensation not exceeding one thousand rupees,-
(a) to be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously;
(b) to be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord has cut off or withheld the supply or services without just and sufficient cause.
Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section, “essential supply or services” includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passage, lift and on staircases, conservancy and sanitary services.
Explanation II.- For the purpose of this section, withholding any essential supply or services shall include acts or omissions, on the part of the landlord on account of which the essential supply or services are cut off by the Local Self
Government Institution or any other competent authority.
20. Protection against arbitrary eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or agreement, a tenant shall not be evicted, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Rent Control Court on an application made to it by the landlord, in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the building on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent and other charges recoverable under the provisions of this Act from him within two months from the date on which a notice of demand for payment of such amount has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882);
(b) that the tenant has without the consent in writing of the landlord has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the building;
(c) that the tenant has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was let without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
(d) that the building was let for use as a residential or commercial one and the tenant has not been occupying therein, without reasonable cause, for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof;
(e) that the building or any part thereof has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation;
(f) that the landlord requires the building for carrying out the repairs or reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated;
(g) that the building or any part thereof are required by the landlord for the purpose of immediate demolition ordered by the Government or a Local Self Government Institution or any other competent authority or the building is required by the landlord to carry out any work in pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme and that such work cannot be carried out without the building being vacated;
(h) that the building is required by the landlord for the purpose of repairs or reconstruction or make thereto any substantial addition or alteration including construction on the terrace or on the appurtenant land and that such repairs or reconstruction or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building being vacated:
Provided that no order for the recovery of possession under clause (f), (g) or (h) shall be made unless the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the plan and the estimate of such repairs or re-construction, as the case may be, have been properly prepared and that the landlord has necessary means to carry out the said repairs or re-construction;
(i) that the building consists 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:
Provided that where the possession of the building has been recovered under clause (e), (f) or (g), a tenant so dispossessed shall have a right of first option to get the reconstructed building or such portion of the reconstructed building equivalent in area to the original building in which he was a tenant on new terms agreed upon by the parties or fixed by the Court after reconstruction in appropriate proceedings;
(j) that the tenant, his spouse or children ordinarily living with him have, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built or acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted any building which is suitable for his use:
Provided that the Rent Control Court may in appropriate cases allow such period to the tenant to vacate the building as it may permit but not exceeding one year from the date of passing the order of eviction;
(k) that the building was let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason 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 building shall be made on this ground where the Rent Control Court is of the opinion that there is a bonafide dispute as to whether the tenant has ceased to be in the service or employment of the landlord;
(l) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building or such alteration to the building as has the effect of changing its identity or diminishing its value substantially;
(m) that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been convicted for causing nuisance or annoyance to a person living in the neighborhood of the building or has been convicted for using or for allowing the use of the building for an immoral or illegal purpose;
(n) that the tenant has, inspite of the previous notice, used or dealt with the building in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Local Self Government Institution while giving him a lease of the land on which the building is situate:
Provided that no order for the recovery of possession of any building shall be made on this ground if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Rent Control Court, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in this clause;
(o) that the tenant, in his reply having denied the ownership of the landlord, has failed to prove it or that such denial was not made in a bonafide manner;
(p) that the person in occupation of the building has failed to prove that he is a bonafide tenant;
(q) that the building let for residential or non-residential purpose shall be required, whether in the same form 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 whose benefit the building is held and that the landlord or such person has
no other reasonably suitable accommodation:
Provided that where the landlord has acquired the building by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such building shall lie under this clause unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the acquisition;
Explanation I.- Building let for a particular use may be required by the landlord for a different use if such use is permissible under law.
Explanation II.- For the purpose of this clause or section 21, 22, 23 or, 24 an occupation by the landlord of any part of a building of which any building let out by him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover the possession of such building;
(r) that the tenant fails to deliver the possession after notice by the landlord to vacate after the expiry of the period of tenancy specified in the agreement.
(3) In any proceedings for eviction under clauses (f), (g), (h) of sub-section (2) of this section or section 22 or section 23 or section 24, the Rent Control Court may allow eviction from a part of the building if the landlord agrees to the same:
Provided that in case of part eviction, the rent and other charges payable, if any, by the tenant shall be decreased in proportion to the part evicted.
21. Restriction against eviction not applicable to certain tenants.– Nothing contained in section 20 shall apply to a tenant of a residential building for which the monthly rent is more than ten thousand rupees, of a commercial building for which the monthly rent is more than twenty thousand rupees and the eviction in such cases shall be governed by the conditions contained in the tenancy agreement and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882(Central Act 4 of 1882).
22. Right to recover immediate possession of the building to certain persons.-(1) Where a person in occupation of any residential building allotted to him by the Government or any authority is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Government or authority to vacate such residential building, there shall accrue, from the date of such order,
to such person, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any tenancy agreement, whether express or implied, custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediate possession of any building let by him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be.
(2) Where a landlord exercises the right to recover possession under sub-section (1) of this section or section 20, 23 or 24 and had received,-
(a) any rent in advance from the tenant, he shall refund to the tenant such amount as represents the rent payable for the unexpired portion of the tenancy period or lease by depositing the same before the Rent Control Court on the date on which the delivery is to be effected or two weeks prior to the date fixed for the delivery of possession;
(b) any other charges payable he shall, in a like manner refund to the tenant a sum which shall bear the same proportion to the total amount so received, as the unexpired portion of the tenancy period or lease:
Provided that any default is made in making any refund, the landlord shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on the amount which he has failed to refund:
Provided further that the landlord may be permitted to set off any amount which he is lawfully entitled to recover from the tenant against the refund due to the tenant.
23. Right to recover immediate possession of the building to the members of the Armed Force.– (1) Where a person,-
(a) is a person released or released from any Armed Forces and the building let out by him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, is required for his own residence; or

(b) is a dependent of a member of any Armed Forces who has been killed in action and the building let by such member isrequired for the residence of the family of such member. Suchmember, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, may, within one year from the date of his release or retirement from such Armed Forces or one year from the date of death of such member or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(2) Where a person is a member of any of the Armed Forces and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the building let by him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, is required for his own residence after his retirement, he, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, at any time, within a period of one year before the date of his retirement, apply to the Rent Control Court for recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(3) Where the person, his spouse or his children referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has let more than one building it shall be open to him, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, to make an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) in respect of any one of the buildings of his choice.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section “Armed Forces” means an Armed Force of the Union constituted under an Act of Parliament.
24. Right to recover immediate possession of building by the Central Government and State Government employees.– (1) Where a person is a retired employee of the Central Government or of a State Government and the building let by him, his spouse or his children is required for his own residence such person, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, may within one year from the date of his retirement or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(2) Where a person is an employee of the Central Government or of a State Government and has a period of less than one year preceding to the date of his retirement and the building let by him or his spouse or his children is required by him for his own residence after his retirement, he, his spouse or his children, as the case may be, may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of retirement shall apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(3) Where a person, his spouse or his children referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has let more than one building, it shall be open to him to make an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) in respect of anyone of the buildings of his choice.
Explanation:- For the purposes of sections 22, 23 and 24, “immediate possession” means possession recoverable on the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of eviction.
25. Right to recover immediate possession of the building by widows, persons with disability and senior citizens.– (1) Where the
landlord is,-
(a) a widow and the building was let by her or by her deceased husband; or
(b) a person with disability and the building was let by him; or
(c) a person who is of the age of sixty years or more and the building was let by him, required by her or him or for her or his family or for any one ordinarily living with her or him for residential or non-residential purpose, such person may apply to the Rent Control Court for the recovery of immediate possession of such building.
(2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let more than one building, it shall be open to him to make an application under sub-section (1) in respect of any one of the residential buildings or any one of the non-residential buildings, as the case may be, of his choice.
Explanation I.- For the purpose of this section, “person with disability” means a person referred to in clause (l) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Central Act 1 of 1996) or clause (f) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (Central Act 44 of 1999).
Explanation II.- The right to recover possession under this section shall be exercisable only once in respect of residential and non-residential building.
26. Payment of rent during eviction proceedings.– (1) In a proceeding for the recovery of possession of any building on any ground, the landlord may, at any stage of the proceedings, make an application to the Rent Control Court for passing an order against the tenant to pay the landlord the amount of rent legally recoverable and the Rent Control Court may, after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant topay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court within one month from the date of such order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the previous month in which payment or deposit is made and continue to pay or deposit, monthly by the fifteenth day of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
(2) In any proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) and where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Rent Control Court may, within fifteen days from the date of the first hearing of the application, fix an interim rent in relation to the building, to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) until the rent in relation thereto is  determined under the provisions of this Act and the amount of arrears, if any, calculated on the basis of the rent so determined shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month from the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the Rent Control Court may allow in this behalf.
(3) In any proceedings referred to in sub-section (1), where there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Rent Control Court may direct the tenant to deposit with the Rent Control Court the amount payable by him under subsection
(1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, and in such case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited until the Rent Control Court decides the dispute and makes an order for the payment of the same.
27. Recovery of possession for occupation and reentry.–
(1) Where a landlord recovers possession of any building form the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (q) of sub-section (2) of section 20 or under section 23, 24 or 25, the landlord shall not, except with the permission of the Rent Control Court in the prescribed manner, re-let the whole or any part of the building within three years from the date of obtaining such
possession:
Provided that where a landlord recovers possession of any building from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (q) of sub-section (2) of section 20 for occupation after construction or rebuilding, the period of three years shall be reckoned from the date of completion of reconstruction or rebuilding, as the case may be.
(2) Where the landlord recovers possession of any building under section 20,23,24 or 25 and the building is not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the building is held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the building so occupied is, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted
tenant without obtaining the permission of the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Court may on an application direct the landlord, if the tenant has not already built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted the building, to put the tenant in possession of the building on the same terms and conditions or on new terms and conditions, if the building have been re-constructed or re-built or to pay him such compensation as the Rent Control Court thinks fit or with both as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant.
28. Recovery of possession for repairs or re-construction and re-entry.– (1) The Rent Control Court may, while making an order on the grounds specified in clause (e), (f), (g) or (h) of subsection (2) of section 20, fix the new rent and ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the building or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, shall record the fact of the selection in the order and specify
therein the date on which he shall deliver possession to the landlord so as to enable him to commence the work of repairs of the building or reconstruction, as the case may be and the date on which the landlord shall deliver the possession of the said building to the tenant.
(2) Where the tenant delivers possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord shall, on the completion of the work of repairs of the building or re-construction, put the tenant in occupation of the building or part thereof before the date specified in sub-section (1) or such extended date as may be specified by the Rent Control Court by an order.
(3) Where the tenant has delivered possession on or before the date specified in the order and the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs of the building or re-construction within three months from the date specified, the Rent Control Court may, on an application by the tenant, order the landlord to put the tenant in occupation of the building on the same terms and conditions or on revised terms and conditions and to pay to the tenant such compensation as the Rent Control Court may thinks fit.
(4) A landlord may, after repairs or re-construction of the building apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family depended on him:
Provided that if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village no such order of direction shall be issued except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it shall be just and proper to do so:
Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business:
Provided also that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivo shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument.
Provided also that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or for any member of his family depended on him.
29. Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period.- (1) Where a landlord after obtaining the permission of the Rent Control Court, in the prescribed manner, lets the whole of the building or part thereof as a residence for such period, not being more than five years, as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not, on the  expiry of the said period, vacate such building, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 20 or in any other law, the Rent Control Court may, on an application by the landlord place the landlord in possession of the building or part thereof by evicting the tenant.
(2) The Rent Control Court shall not,-
(i) grant permission under sub-section (1) in respect of a building for more than two times consecutively except for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing.
Explanation.- A permission granted under sub-section (1) shall not be construed to be consecutive, if a period of five years or more has elapsed after the expiry of the last limited period of tenancy.
(ii) entertain any application from the tenant calling in question the bonafides of the landlord in letting the building under this section.
(3) All applications made before the Rent Control Court and appeals made before the Appellate Authority by the tenant shall abate on the expiry of the period for which permission has been granted under sub-section (1).
(4) While passing an order under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court may order damages to the landlord for the use or occupation of the building at double the last rent paid by the tenant together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum for the period from the date of such order till the date of actual vacation by the tenant.
30. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases.- Where the landlord in respect of any building is a company or other body corporate or a co-operative society or a public institution then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 20 or in any other law for the time being in force the Rent Control Court may, on an application by such landlord, place the landlord in possession of such building by evicting the tenant, if the Rent Control Court is satisfied that,-
(a) the tenant to whom such building was let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment and the building is required for the use of employees of such landlord; or
(b) the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which he was authorised to occupy such building; or
(c) any other person is in unauthorized occupation of such building; or
(d) the building is required bonafide by the landlord for the use of employees of such landlord or, in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “public institution”, includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary but does not include any such institution set up by a private individual or group of individuals whether incorporate or not.
31. Permission to construct additional structures. – Where the landlord proposes to make any improvement in, or construct any additional structure on, any building which has been let to a tenant and the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to make such improvement or construct such additional structure and the Rent Control Court, on an application by the landlord, is satisfied that the
landlord is ready and willing to commence the work and that such work will not cause any undue hardship to the tenant, the Rent Control Court may permit the landlord to do such work and may make such other order as it thinks fit.
32. Special provision regarding vacant building sites.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 20, where any building which has been let comprises vacant land upon which it is permissible under the Building Rules for the time being in force, to erect any building, whether for use as a residence or for any other purpose and the landlord proposing to erect such building is unable to obtain possession of the land from the tenant during the tenancy
period and the Rent Control Court, on an application by the landlord, is satisfied that the landlord is willing to commence the work and that the severance of the vacant land from the rest of the building will not cause undue hardship to the tenant, the Rent Control Court may,-
(a) direct such severance; or
(b) place the landlord in possession of the vacant land; or
(c) determine the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the rest of the building; or
(d) make such other order as it thinks fit in the circumstances of the case.
33. Vacant possession to landlord.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the interest of a tenant in any building is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Rent Control Court under this Act for the recovery of possession of such building, the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 32, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the building and vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons therefrom:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such building.
34. Constitution of Rent Control Court.- The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint a person who is or is qualified to be appointed as a Munsiff to be the Rent Control Court for such local area as may be specified therein.
35. Appointment of Inspectors.– (1) The Government may by notification in the Gazette appoint such officers as they think fit to be Inspectors for the purpose of this Act and may assign to them such local limits of jurisdiction.
(2) The Inspectors may for the purpose of any investigation or enquiry under this Act enter any building, in the manner as may be prescribed.
36. Appointment of Valuers.- The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint officers as Valuers for any area having such qualification, as may be prescribed.
37. Duties and Powers of Valuer.– (1) The Valuer shall assist the Rent Control Court in fixing the standard rent for any building in respect of which an application for fixation of standard rent is pending before the Rent Control Court.
(2) The Valuer shall, having regard to the situation, location and condition of the building, and the amenities provided therein, and where there are similar or nearly similar buildings in the locality, having regard to the rent payable in respect of such buildings, submit a report to the Rent Control Court indicating in detail the method of calculation of standard rent fixed by him and stating the reasons for his conclusion.
(3) The Valuer shall prepare and submit the report for the purposes of section 8.
38. Execution of Orders.– Every order made by the Rent Control Court and every order passed in an appeal shall after the expiry of the time allowed therein, be executed by the Munsiff’s Court or if there are more than one Munsiff’s Court by the Principal Munsiff’s Court having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situate as if it were a decree passed by it.
39. Decisions which have become final not to be reopened.– The Rent Control Court shall summarily reject any application under section 20 of the Act, which arises between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim substantially the same issue as have been finally decided in a former proceedings under this Act or under the corresponding provisions of any law in force prior to the commencement of this Act or the corresponding provisions of any law repealed by this Act.
40. Constitution of Appellate Authority.– The Government may, by general or special order, notified in the Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities not below the rank of a District Judge, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.
41. Appeal.– (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction in the manner as may be prescribed.
(2) On such appeal being preferred, the Appellate Authority may order the stay of further proceedings in the matter, pending decision on the appeal.
(3) The Appellate Authority may call for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit shall decide the appeal.
Explanation.– The Appellate Authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.
(4) The Appellate Authority shall also have all the powers of the Rent Control Court including power for fixing the arrears of rent.
(5) The decision of the Appellate Authority, on an order of the Rent Control Court, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law.
42. Costs.– Subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be prescribed, the costs and incidental expenses to all proceedings before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority shall be the discretion of the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, which shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what
extent such costs are to be paid and to give all necessary directions for the purpose.
Explanation. – The Appellate Authority may set aside or vary any order passed by the Rent Control Court with regard to the costs and the incidental expenses to the proceedings.
43. Power to remand.– While disposing of an appeal under this Act, the Appellate Authority may remand the case for fresh disposal by giving such directions as it may think fit.
44. Order under the Act to be binding on sub-tenant.- (1) Any order for the eviction of a tenant passed under this Act shall be binding on all sub-tenants under him, whether they are parties to the proceedings or not, provided such order was not obtained by fraud or collusion.
(2) Where sub-tenancy is allowed under the original tenancy agreement, the sub-tenants shall be made a party to the proceedings if notice of the sub-tenancy had been given to the landlord.
45. Proceedings by or against legal representatives.– The provisions of section 146 and Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( Central Act 5 of 1908) shall, as far as possible, be applicable to the proceedings under this Act.
46. Summons etc.– (1) The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority shall subject to such conditions and limitations, as may be prescribed, have the powers which are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,-
(a) discovery and inspection;
(b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the deposits for their expenses;
(c) compelling the production of documents;
(d) examination of witnesses on oath;
(e) granting adjournments ;
(f) reception of evidence taken on affidavit;
(g) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and for local inspection;
(h) setting aside exparte orders;
(i) enlargement of time originally fixed or granted;
(j) power to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings; and
(k) power to review its own order.
(2) The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material, and it shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974).
47. Penalties.– (1) Where any tenant sub-lets, assigns or otherwise parts with the possession of the whole or part of any building in contravention of the provisions of clause (b) of sub – section (2) of section 19, the Rent Control Court may impose on the tenant a fine of five thousand rupees or double the rent received by the tenant for sub-letting for every month till such time the cause of the complaint ceases, whichever is more and the amount shall be paid to the landlord.
(2) Where a landlord contravenes the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 27, the Rent Control Court may impose a fine which may extend to six months’ rent of the building and may be ordered to be paid to the tenant.
(3) Where the tenant has delivered possession and the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs of the building or reconstruction, as the case may be, within three months from the specified date under sub-section (1) of section 28, the Rent Control Court may impose a fine equivalent to rent for three months and the same shall be ordered to be paid to the tenant.
(4) Where a tenant fails to make re-entry under subsection (2) of section 27 within three months from the date of the completion of repairs of the building or reconstruction, as the case may be, after receipt of the intimation in writing by the landlord, the Rent Control Court may impose a fine equivalent to three months’ rent of the building and may be ordered to be paid to the landlord.
48. Time within which proceedings have to be completed.– The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority shall, pass final orders in any proceedings before it within six months from the date of appearance of the parties thereto.
49. Power to make rules.– (1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such rules may provide for,-
(a) the manner in which the application under sub-section
(1) of section 8 shall be made;
(b) the manner of depositing rent and other charges payable under sub-section (1) of section 13;
(c) the manner of sending copy of application to the landlord under sub-section (2) of section 13;
(d) the manner in which the rent or other charges to be paid to the applicant under sub-section (3) of section 13;
(e) the manner in which the entry and the inspection by the landlord or a person authorised by him in a building under subsection (2) of section 18 shall be conducted;
(f) the manner in which application under sub-section( 2) of section 20 shall be made;
(g) the manner in which permission of the Rent Control Court shall be obtained by the landlord under sub-section (1) of section 27;
(h) any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed; and
(i) all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed.
(3) Every rule under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the Legislative Assembly while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, the Legislative Assembly makes any modification in the rule or decides that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
50. Exemptions.– Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may, in public interest or for any other sufficient cause, by notification in the Gazette, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.
51. Protection of action taken in good faith.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule, order or direction made or issued thereunder.
(2) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government, any officer or authority for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act, any rule, order or direction made or issued thereunder.
52. Power to remove difficulties.– (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may, before the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act, by order do anything not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act which appears to it necessary for removing the difficulty.
(2) Every order issued under sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before the Legislative Assembly.
53. Repeal and savings.– (1) The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (2 of 1965) is hereby repealed.
(2) Not withstanding such repeal, the Rent Control Courts and the Appellate Authorities constituted under the repealed Act shall continue to be the Rent Control Courts and the Appellate Authorities, as the case may be, constituted under this Act.
(3) All investigations and proceedings pending before the Rent Control Courts and Appellate Authorities immediately before the commencement of this Act may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

About

About.

Determination of fair rent

Section 5. (1) The Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building fix the fair rent for such building after holding such inquiry as it thinks fit.
(2) In fixing the fair rent the Court shall take into consideration the property tax or house tax fixed for the building at the time of letting in the property tax register or house tax register of the local authority with in whose area the building is situated :
Provided that in the case of –
(i) any residential building, or
(ii) any non-residential building, excepting a building to which fittings have been affixed or in which machinery have been installed and such fittings or machinery have been excluded from valuation for the purpose of fixing the property tax or house tax by a local authority.
The fair rent fixed may in proper cases be lower than, but shall in no case exceed by more than fifteen percent, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax for the building, prevailing two years immediately before the date of the application, was fixed, or if the building was not assessed to property tax or house tax before the said period of two years, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax prevailing immediately before the date of the application was fixed.
(3) If there is no property tax or house tax fixed for the building or if it is not based on a rental basis or if the building is situated in an area which is not a City, Municipality, Panchayat or in any other local authority, the fair rent shall be fixed after taking into consideration the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months preceding the letting.
(4) In case the allotment of the building is made by the Accommodation Controller, he may provisionally fix the fair rent for the building and the Rent Control Court may, on application by an aggrieved party modify the fair rent so fixed.
(5) The Rent Control Court shall intimate the fair rent of the building fixed to the local authority within whose jurisdiction the building, in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed, is situated. The local authority on receipt of such intimation shall make a record of the fair rent fixed in the register kept for the purpose and shall make the register available for inspection in such places and in such manner as may be prescribed. The register so prepared shall be kept up-to-date so as to contain full particulars in regard to the rent fixed in respect of a building by the Rent Control Court and also the subsequent variation thereto made by the said Court.
(Section 5 had been struck down by Isaac Ninan v. State of Kerala. 1995 (2) KLJ 555)
(Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) KLT 767) laid down that S.5 (1) is constitutional and continues on the statute book)

1. Scope
This section gives the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent of a building. In Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 848: 1995 (2) KLJ 555) this section was declared unconstitutional and hence void. In 2004 in Edgur Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheriah (2004 (1) KLT 767) sub section 1 of this section was held constitutionally valid in view of doctrine of severability. Edgur Ferus went in appeal in the Supreme court (2009 (4) KLT 673 (SC)) and the Apex court found no infirmity in the verdict of the High Court. The Judgment in Edger Ferus has been approved by the Supreme Court. Thus the Rent Control Court has got jurisdiction to fix fair rent of a building, such fair rent can be fixed using the criteria stipulated in Edgur Ferus case. While fixing the fair rent, the Rent Control Court has got power to allow periodical increase also.
Rent Control Act the Authority has power not only to fix fair rent but also to allow reasonable modifications such as allowing a periodic increase of 10% in the fair rent, every year to the rate so fixed at reasonable intervals, in the order fixing fair rent.
It is now laid down beyond doubt that S.5(1) is perfectly constitutional and continues on the statute book and is available for enforcement. Fair rent can now be fixed under S.5(1). In a proceeding for fixation of rent under section 5 (1), the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction either to order eviction or deposit of rent under S.12 of the Act.

3. Fair Rent
The pegging of the rents at the 1940 rates had discouraged building construction activity which ultimately is likely to affect everybody and therefore in order to encourage new constructions exempted them altogether from the provisions of the Act. It did not proceed on the basis that all tenants belonged to the weaker section of the community and needed protection and that all landlords belonged to the better off classes. It confined the protection of the Act to the weaker section paying rents below Rs. 250. It is clear. therefore. that the Madras Legislature deliberately proceeded on the basis that fair rent was to be fixed which was to be fair both to the landlords as well as to the tenants and that only the poorer classes of tenants needed protection.
A fine-spun line of thought, often forgotten but fundamental to the rent restriction scheme, deserves mention here. Fair rent is not always what is fair between particular landlord and his tenant, considering their relative economic circumstances. Fair rent is not what a tenant has acquiesced in for reasons of prudence but what the law prescribes to be fair in spite of his consent to pay the higher rent. That you cannot acquiesced away your right to fix fair rent is basic to this type of legislation. As per Edger Ferus case the court can fix the fair rent quinquennially.
In Aboobaker v. Vasu it was held that Civil court has got power to fix fair rent, Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria directed the civil courts to transfer all fair rent applications to rent control court. The Supreme Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the Kerala High Court. Hence the Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria stands as good law.

4. Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala
Constructing buildings and letting then out for rent to tenants would also fall within the ambit of “business” in Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The phrase reasonable restriction connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interest of general public. Legislation while arbitrarily invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Art.19(1)(g) and the social control permitted under clause (6) of Art.19, it must be held to be warranting in that qualities. If so, the combined operation of S.5, 6 and 8 of the Act is a gross invasion on the right of a landlord to carry on business. Section 5 (1) is reinstated and the Landlord or the tenant can approach the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent.

5. Matters to be considered while fixing fair rent
The Rent Control Court can fix rent on application by the landlord or the tenant. The Rent Control Court shall consider the property tax or house tax fixed by the local authority. If no tax is fixed for the building the fair rent shall be fixed on the basis of rent for a similar accommodation in the similar circumstances.
The Rent Control Court can fix rent on application by the landlord or the tenant. The Rent Control Court shall consider the property tax or house tax fixed by the local authority. If no tax is fixed for the building the fair rent shall be fixed on the basis of rent for a similar accommodation in the similar circumstances.
Proceedings under S. 5 for fixation of fair rent pending before Civil Court should be transmitted suo-motu by the Civil Court to concerned Rent Control Court.
Even if S.5 is taken to be not available, that does not in any manner deprive the Rent Controller of his jurisdiction to fix the fair rent.
The jurisdiction of the civil court under section 9 of the CPC should still be available for determination of fair rent of a building of which the provisions of the Rent control Act apply.
In Aboobacker v. Vasu it is decided that the civil court has got jurisdiction to fix fair rent on criteria decided in the judgment. Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act is void to the extent of restriction in revision of rent as it would amount to unreasonable restriction affecting the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g).
Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pius C. Kuriakose has reinstated S. 5(1) of the Act and conferred jurisdiction to the Rent Control Court the power to fix fair rent on criteria given in the judgment. Even if there is no provision for periodical revision of the rent in the rent deed the landlord can approach the Rent Control Court for revision of rent. Rent Control Court while fixing fair rent could take note of (i) the inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money, (ii) variation in the cost of living index in the area since commencement of the lease, (iii) demand for accommodation and availability of the building in the locality, (iv) prevailing rent in the locality for the similar accommodation, (v) the type of construction, (vi) the general or special amenities provided in the building, (vii) whether residential or non residential, (viii) Annual rental value of the building at the time of filing application for fair rent, (ix) revision or fresh imposition of municipal taxes, cess rate in respect of other increase in the charge of electricity or water consumption by the tenant and also by the landlord, (x) Increase in account of repairs are to be taken into account. This decision was approved by the Supreme Court. Having heard learned appearing counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Kerala High Court.
Unregistered lease deed cannot be pressed into service to create any right for revision of rent. Unregistered lease deed could at best be looked into for ascertaining the commencement of possession, rate of rent or similar other provisions which are collateral to the principal transaction. Since the document is unregistered the remedy available is to approach the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent.
The Rent Control Court has got jurisdiction to fix fair rent. The only thing is that the Rent Controller could not rely on Ss. 5, 6, or 8 or any of the restrictions contained therein for fixing fair rent. Fair rent has to be understood as a rent a willing tenant would pay to a willing landlord, for a building commensurate with the rent prevalent in the locality and the nature and location of the building.
The rent originally fixed/or arranged between the parties in 1962 was Rs. 3 per month. This is unfair now. Hence we direct that the rent of Rs 75 per month should be paid.
Enhanced rate of rent fixed by the Supreme Court of India having regard to location, prevailing rental rate and the fact that premises had been taken for residential use but put to non residential use. In an eviction petition The Supreme Court set aside the eviction decree and considering the insignificant rent paid by the tenant ordered the amount of rent to be increased. Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under ‘Article 136’ (Special Leave) enhanced rent from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 300/- having regard to enormous increase in rent in the areas concerned.
Basis of assessment made by the local body could normally be accepted as correct, because assessment is expected to be made on the basis of the prevailing rates of rent for similar accommodation in similar circumstances.
Apex court of India gives some guidelines to fix fair rent so as to reduce unnecessary rent control litigation and to mitigate the injustice caused to the landlord. Majority of the rent control cases are filed because landlords do not get reasonable rent akin to market rent, then on one ground or the other litigation is initiated. So before saying omega, we deem it our duty and obligation to fix some guidelines and norms for such type of litigation, so as to minimise landlord – tenant litigation at all levels. These are as follows: –

(i) The tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent, after every three years and enhanced rent should then be made payable to the landlord. If the rent is too low (in comparison to market rent), having been fixed almost 20 to 25 years back then the present market rate should be worked out either on the basis of valuation report or reliable estimates of building rentals in the surrounding areas, let out on rent recently.
(ii) Apart from the rental, property tax, water tax, maintenance charges, electricity charges for the actual consumption of the tenanted premises and for common area shall be payable by the tenant only so that the landlord gets the actual rent out of which nothing would be deductible. In case there is enhancement in property tax, water tax or maintenance charges, electricity charges then the same shall also be borne by the tenant only.
(iii) The usual maintenance of the premises, except major repairs would be carried out by the tenant only and the same would not be reimbursable by the landlord.
(iv)But if any major repairs are required to be carried out then in that case only after obtaining permission from the landlord in writing, the same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to adjustment of the amount spent thereon, would have to be worked out between the parties.
(v) If present and prevalent market rent assessed and fixed between the parties is paid by the tenant then landlord shall not be entitled to bring any action for his eviction against such a tenant at least for a period of 5 years. Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shall enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premises.
(vi) The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the official valuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the matter.
(vii) The rent so fixed should be just, proper and adequate, keeping in mind, location, type of construction, accessibility with the main road, parking space facilities available therein etc. Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord.
These are some of the illustrative guidelines and norms but not exhaustive, which can be worked out between landlord and tenant so as to avoid unnecessary litigation in Court. This case is based on UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, which had freezed the rent to the 1972 level and caused injustice. The UP Legislature has already passed UP Regulation of Rent and Eviction Act 2010.

6. Periodical fixation
Though there is no specific provision for periodical fixation of fair rent, the general provisions of fixation of fair rent alone are to be considered. The change of circumstances including the increase of population, scarcity of buildings, increase in living cost index etc. would compel for fixation of fair rent periodically. In order to avoid annual applications from the landlord or tenant the Hon’ble High Court, opined that ‘Landlord or the tenant as the case may be, can approach the Rent Control Court for revision of rent quinquennially. Rent Control Act the Authority has power not only to fix fair rent but also to allow reasonable modifications such as allowing a periodic increase of 10% in the fair rent, every year to the rate so fixed at reasonable intervals, in the order fixing fair rent.

7. Enhancement of Rent during eviction petition

The relief of enhancement of rent during rent control proceedings until eviction takes effect is not inconsistent with the other relief for eviction. Both the relief can be simultaneously given.

The Application for enhancement of rent during the eviction proceedings at the appellate stage is justifiable. The Appellate authority enhanced the rent from Rs. 500 per month to Rs. 9600 per month, Order of the Appellate Authority modified by directing the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month provisionally till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority.

8. Interim fixation of fair rent
In Aboobacker v. Vasu it is decided that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority may fix fair rent in cases before them. The latter case by the same bench that is Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria the position is not altered. Hence the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority has got jurisdiction to fix interim rent, even if the petition is for eviction on any other ground.
The monthly rent of Rs.700/-, for building having an area of 600 sq. ft. is very low. We are therefore inclined to re-fix the rent tentatively at Rs.4,500/- per month prospectively with effect from 01/10/2010. We make it clear that the above re – fixation is tentative and it is open for either party to apply for regular fixation of fair rent, if they are aggrieved. Till such time as fair rent is fixed, the respondent shall pay rent at Rs.4,500/- per month.
During the pendency of appeal, the appellants had filed an application seeking a direction against the respondent for payment of rent @ Rs.50,000/- per month. The application supported by an affidavit, alleges that the market rent of the premises in question was not less than Rs.50,000/- per month when the application was filed. A Valuation Certificate issued by Chartered Engineer & Approved Valuer, is also enclosed with the application, according to which the market value of the plot in question was not less than Rs. 7,00,000/- per cent and the current market rent for the building not less than Rs. 8/- per square feet. As per the lease deed entered between the deceased owners and the respondents, the premises in question is constructed over an area measuring about 20 cents. The covered area is said to be 5000 sq. ft. or so. In the circumstances while the High Court was justified in tentatively revising the rent for the premises, the revision was not, in our opinion, adequate. Instead of Rs. 10,000/- determined by the High Court, the respondents shall pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards rent. The same shall stand revised to Rs. 25,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2009. The revision ordered by us is also tentative and shall not prevent the parties from seeking determination of the fair rent for the premises by instituting proceedings before the competent Court / authority in accordance with law.

9. Fixation of rent during the contractual Period
Declaration as to the binding nature of an agreement which is in force for 51 years. Rates were fixed in the contract but nothing therein to indicate that there is no power to revise rates. Successor was competent to revise rates, even during the contractual period. Because of lapse of many years old rates became unconscionable. Revision of rates held valid.

DB of High Court in Edger Ferus was justified in reviewing judgement in Issac Ninan and restoring S.5(1) of BRC Act 2021 (3) KHC 292

How to fix Fair rent of a building already let out, you can have your kindle book at

Public Nuisance

Section 133 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code

133 (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-
(d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing by and that in consequence the removal or support of such tree, is necessary.
Such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, within a time to be fixed in the order to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure or to remove or support such tree; or, if he object so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute.
(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court.

The provisions operate on different fields under different contingencies. Eviction of tenant is not the object & purpose of S. 133 being public purpose. The resultant eviction, if any, is only one of the results while achieving public purpose. Section 11 operates only where eviction of the tenant is involved. The private interest of a tenant is subject to public interest under S. 133. of Cr. P.C. Provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not a bar to proceeding under the Code of Criminal procedure.
The consideration for passing an order under S. 133 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is substantially and fundamentally different from the consideration for passing an order of eviction S.11 (4) iv of the Act.

Landlord Requiring Additional Accommodation.

S. 11 (8)

(8) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the Whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.

1. Scope
When the landlord and the tenant are occupying portions of the same building and the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use, the rent control law provides a ground for eviction of the tenant who occupies the remaining part of such building, provided that the advantage of the landlord outweigh the hardship that is caused to the tenant.
This section can be invoked only by the landlord (a) who shares his building with a tenant, (b) who requires additional accommodation for his personal use (c) where claim is bonafide and (d) who satisfies the Court that the hardship which might be caused to the tenant by eviction will not outweigh the advantage to the Landlord. If only all these four ingredients are established the landlord can succeed under S.11 (8).

Sub tenant acquired right of ultimate landlord. This does not extinguish the intermediate estate created by original landlord in favour of original tenant. Possession of a portion as sub-tenant will not entitle assignee landlord to seek eviction under 11 (8) Subtenant purchasing right of landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant under Section 11 (8). Protection under S.11(17) cannot be claimed by a tenant who is sought to be evicted under S.11(8).
2. Occupation v. Possession
Legal possession by itself does not constitute occupation. Possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. Mere possession by landlord is not sufficient. There must be occupation by the landlord. The landlord’s requirement should be supplementary to his existing use , i.e. he should use the building in his occupation, mere possession is not enough .

3. Additional accommodation

Additional accommodation sought for must be supplementary to the existing requirement of the landlord. Court cannot impose any restriction with regard to the use of the additional accommodation from which the eviction of the tenant is sought Additional accommodation need not be confined to expansion of an existing trade. “Additional accumulation” and “Personal use” are expressions with wide amplitude. Additional Accommodation can be availed even for a different business which the landlord conducts in part of the building. It need not be for expanding the business conducted by the landlord in part of the building. Additional accommodation under section 11 (8) can be for expansion of existing business or for new Business, to what use the additional accommodation should be put, is the choice of the landlord, provided that the test of bonafide under section 11 (10) shall be satisfied.
If the landlord feels that additional accommodation is necessary and if there are sufficient grounds or justification in support of it and then it is not for the Court to find out whether even without such additional accommodation the landlord could somehow manage to carry on. Even in a case where an additional accommodation is sought as a luxury, the relief should not be denied to the landlord.
In a suit by landlord who is already in occupation of a portion of the building and needs additional accommodation which the tenant is occupying in the building for his personal occupation, once it is held that the landlord requires additional accommodation for his personal use he is entitled to utilize it to best suit his requirement. The condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant. The landlord may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs, additions or alterations to suit his requirements. The tenant has no say in such matters.
The test of bonafides under Section 11 (8) read with Section 11 (10) is not whether the landlord could merely afford to live without the additional accommodation, but whether in seeking the additional accommodation the landlord is pleading an honest purpose and not merely setting up an excuse to obtain eviction.
The sub-section can have application only when landlord is occupying a part of the building and he wants to occupy the portion occupied by the tenant also for his personal use by way of additional accommodation.

4. Personal use
The phrase ‘additional accommodation for personal use of the landlord’ may relate to residential purpose as well as for non-residential purpose. Where it relates to non-residential purpose there is no reason to restrict personal use of the landlord for the purpose of only expansion of the existing business. He can put the additional accommodation, so long as he bonafide need it, to any business or purpose of his choice. All that the section requires is that the landlord must require additional accommodation for his personal use. It is certainly for the landlord to decide what business he will carry on. A Court will not be justified in saying that he requires the building bonafide for his own use only if he requires it for expanding his existing trade.
The tenant cannot dictate the landlord to remain content with a smaller and less convenient premise in preference to the tenanted premises which is more spacious and more advantageous. It is not for the court also to find out whether even without such additional accommodation the landlord could somehow manage to carryon. The need for additional accommodation for personal use is wide enough to include use by the members of the landlord’s family. On the death of the landlord the legal heirs get the right of personal use unless they are discontinuing the business. Landlord dies during the pendency of petition under S.11 (8). Additional accommodation for the personal use of the landlord cannot survive him.
When a landlord requires additional accommodation for the business of the partnership of which he is an active partner, the requirement is for his personal use. Landlord who is in partner of a firm seeking additional accommodation can be taken as personal use and the claim is maintainable.
Once the Rent Control Court orders eviction under S.11 (8) the choice regarding the mode of its further use is entirely that of the Landlord.

5. Part of building
Portions occupied by the Landlord and tenant of the same building used as an integral unit cannot be treated as different buildings in the context of claim under section 11 (8).
It is not necessary that rooms should be adjacent. It need only be form part of the same building though separated by a few rooms. The requirement is only that landlord and tenant should occupy portions of the same building. The term building in S.11 (8) is whether the two portions form part and parcel of one and the same large structure with a common roof. Tenant can be evicted under S.11(8) even if rooms are not adjacent.

6. Section 11(3) and Section 11(8) distinction
Section 11(8) is more or less similar to Section 11(3) in its impact. Due to the presence of first and second proviso to Section 11(10) the interests of the tenant is safeguarded in an eviction under Section 11(8). Further the bonafides of the petition also can be questioned.
Distinction between 11 (3) and 11 (8) are 1. In 11 (8) comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant is to be considered. But in 11 (3) whether the tenant is dependent on the business carried on in the premises for his lively hood and whether there is any suitable building in the locality for the tenant to carry on such trade or business is to be considered. 2. and in the case of 11 (3) the possession of another building in the same city town or village will be a bar for passing an order of eviction. While on the contrary in the case of 11 (8) occupation of part of the building adjacent to the tenanted building is the basis of claiming eviction. Thus it is seen that the requirements of sub section 3 and 8 are entirely different.
To resist eviction under section 11 (8) the tenant has to prove the hardship that cause to him outweigh the advantage of the landlord and the test of bonafide is not so rigorous as in section 11 (3). Question of bona fides is certainly relevant not only in S.11(3) and S.11(8) but also in S.11(7).

Section 11 (3) and 11 (8) are mutually exclusive, entirely different and the requirements are also different. The option available to a landlord under 11 (3) is hedged around by 4 provisos, to prevent its misuse. The conditions for availing eviction under S.11 (8) are that (i) He (Land lord) is occupying a part of the building (ii) tenant is occupying the remaining part (iii) the landlord requires the additional accommodation for his personal use. In the former section the occupation of a room by the landlord is an impediment for eviction which in the latter section occupation on of a room in the same building is the main requirement for an order of eviction. In the former section the petition can be put forward for the bonafide requirement of the dependents but in latter only requirement of the landlord’s personal use is considered. The tenant cannot dictate the condition in which the additional accommodation is to be used by the landlord. The landlord may use it as it exists or he may use it after necessary repairs additions or alternations to suit his requirements. The tenant has no say in such matters.
Sub-section (3) and (8) of Section 11 are not mutually exclusive. If both the grounds are available to the landlord it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or on both. The fact that landlord is in possession of a part of the building will not exclude the operation of sub-section (3).
Sub-section (3) and (8) of Section 11 are mutually exclusive. The second proviso to Section 11 (3) prohibit an eviction order under 11(3) if the tenant is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in the building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on his trade. This requirement is absent in Section 11 (8). The first proviso to section 11 (10) states that the Rent Control Court shall reject an application under 11 (8) if it is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The concept of comparative hardship is not available in Section 11 (3). These factors make these two sections mutually exclusive.
The test of bonafide need under Section 11 (3) would be more rigorous than the test under Section 11 (8). If the case of the landlord is that he is residing in a part of building and he requires another part of the building in occupation of the tenant for his occupation so as to have additional accommodation and not to transplant himself from the portion he is residing to the new portion then the case squarely falls within Section 11 (8). If on the other hand a person is occupying a portion of the building, another portion is in the possession of the tenant and he wants that portion as he prefers to occupy that portion of the building and not the portion he had been occupying so far it will be as claim that falls under Section 11 (3).
Where the landlord requires additional accommodation for himself and the family members, it would come under S.11 (8). If the landlord requires another portion in the occupation of his tenant to accommodate other members of his family dependent upon him, it would be governed by S.11 (3) of the Act. However, if both the grounds are available to the landlord, it is open to him to apply for eviction on either of the grounds or both.

S.11 (3) and 11 (8) are not mutually exclusive. It may be that even without the additional accommodation, the landlord may manage. But there are many people who can afford luxuries. There are no reasons to deny that to them so long as the law does not prohibit their enjoyment. The test of bonafides under S.11. (8) read with S.11 (10) is not whether the landlord could merely afford to live without the additional accommodation, but whether in seeking the additional accommodation the landlord is pleading an honest purpose and not merely setting up an excuse to obtain eviction.
The ingredients of section 11 (3) and 11(8) are distinct, different and mutually exclusive. Standards necessary for establishing bonafides in petition under section 11(8) is not so stringent as in petition under section 11(3).

Tenant Ceases to occupy

(S. 11 (4) (v))

if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause.

1. Object:
A tenant is liable to be evicted if he ceases to occupy the tenanted premises without reasonable cause for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. The question is whether the tenant occupies the building and not whether he has got legal possession. Legal possession is always with the tenant until an eviction order is passed and executed and landlord gets the possession in a lawful manner. Legal possession combined with actual physical use of the building is occupation. The rent law has a duty to avoid scarcity of the building as well as the misuse and non-use of the building. Section 11(10) has no application to a proceeding under this subsection. Physical possession with legal possession coupled with use of the building constitutes occupation.
There is no inherent inconsisitence between ground u/s 11 (4) I and 11 (4) v hence the grounds of cessation of occupation and subletting will be simultaneously available to the landlord.

2. Ceases to occupy:
In order to constitute the ground of ‘ceased to occupy’, it is imperative on the part of the landlord to establish that not only was the business closed, but also that the tenant had withdrawn from the business activity with the intention to stop the business for all times to come. A casual closure of the shop for certain exigencies would not mean that he had ceased or abandoned his tenancy rights with the intention that he no longer interested in occupying the shop. However the author’s opinion is that what is the intention of the tenant is not relevant, whether he had kept the building for the specified period unoccupied is the relevant question.
The landlord who seeks eviction under Section 11 (4) (v) should establish not only that the tenant was not in occupation of building without reasonable cause continuously for six months but also that he was not occupying the building on the date of the petition.
The court must be fully satisfied that there was an intention on the part of the tenant to shift his residence to an alternative place, for passing an order of eviction on the ground of non occupation. The shop remained closed due to arbitration procedure between the tenants they are liable to be evicted as there should have been actual user of shop by them. Occupation by servants cannot be construed as occupation by master. The occupation by the tenant is the occupation by the tenant himself and not by anyone else and leaving some belongings of the son of the tenant in the leasehold premises would not amount to occupation to defeat the eviction sought for under S.11(4)(v).

Occupation in the context of S.11(4) (v) means only physical occupation. Cessation for the purpose of S.11(4) (v) must continue up to the date of filing of Rent Control petition. If it is seen that no business is being carried on in the premises and that the premises are remaining closed there will be justification to presume that there has been cessation of occupation.
Tenant shifted to a foreign country leaving his mother and brother in the house who were regularly paying rent to the landlord. Eviction cannot be ordered on the ground that tenant ceased to occupy the building. The term “family” has to be given a liberal and broad construction so as to include near relations of the tenant.

4. Possession and Occupation
Legal possession by itself does not constitute occupation. Possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. It cannot be inferred that the tenant was doing business merely because there was a telephone in the room and the room remained opened when the commissioner visited. Once landlord could establish that Tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months prior to filing the petition he is entitled to get an order of eviction. Landlord need not establish that Tenant had abandoned the building. The word occupy used by the statute would show that the premise be put to use. Mere presence or intermittent opening of the tenanted premise will not suffice occupation. The tenant should actually use the building. Occupation in the context of S.11 (4) means physical occupation when it pertains to a residential building it means occupation through residence and when it pertains to commercial building it means occupation by conduct of business.
If a building let out for residential or non-residential purpose always remains closed the inference is that it is not used or occupied. The Fact that some of the belongings of the tenant are kept in the building by itself is not sufficient to show that the building is being used. The tenant was not carrying on any business in the premises and had removed all the stock in trade furniture and fittings and had kept only almirah. He was held to have ceased to occupy the premises.
Once landlord could establish that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition he is entitled to get an order of eviction under this section. The word occupy used in the statute would show that the tenant cannot be heard to contend that he is having physical possession of the premises though not in occupation. It is not necessary that the tenant should abandon the building so as to attract S.11 (4) v. The word ‘occupy’ used by the statute would show that tenanted premises be put to use.
Occupation includes possession as a primary ingredient, for there can be no occupation without possession. But possession must combine with something more to make it occupation. Legal possession does not by itself constitute occupation Under S.11 (4) (v) of the Act it is doubtless that the word occupation is used to denote the tenant’s actual physical use of the building either by himself or thorough his agents or employees. Hence, the tenant cannot upset the presumption of non-occupation by merely pointing out features of his legal possession of the premises. Occupation means physical occupation when it pertains to a residential building occupation means occupation through residence and when it pertains to a commercial building it is occupation by conduct of business.
Legal possession of the building by the tenant will, by itself, be not sufficient for refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that there was reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the building.

5. Reasonable cause:
What is reasonable ground is depended on the facts and circumstances of each case. Inter-se dispute between the legal heirs of the original tenant is not a reasonable cause for non user of the tenanted premises continuously for six months. Transfer of a government servant is not a reasonable cause for not using the premises. No rigid formula can be evolved for proof of reasonable cause; it has to be evaluated depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The omission of the words without reasonable cause in the petition will not disentitle the landlord to get eviction on the ground of tenant ceases to occupy the building for more the six months without reasonable cause. Even if the pleading are lacking or vague if both parties understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to the requirement of law and placed necessary materials before the Court neither party is prejudiced.
In a case where there is stout denial of the allegations regarding cessation, the tenant is not justified in banking upon any “reasonable cause” which was neither pleaded nor proved to contend that the cessation was justifiable.

6. Subsequent Events
Even if landlord has sold away building, such sale cannot be a subsequent event having a fundamental impact on the landlord’s right to evict the tenant under S.11(4)(v). Contention of the tenant that the building was sold during the pendency of eviction petition which is a subsequent event and should lead to dissolution of the order of eviction under 11(4)v. landlord’s entitlement to get an order of eviction under 11(4)v depends not directly on the merits of his claim but on the entailment of the liability for eviction by the tenant due to any action or inaction on the tenant’s part. Even if landlord has sold away building, such sale cannot be a subsequent event having a fundamental impact on the landlord’s right to evict the tenant under S.11(4)(v)/

7. How to prove:
Return of registered notices repeatedly with endorsements like “door closed”, the tenant’s absence in the premises, presence of old posters on the face of the door, heap of settled dust, clusters of spider webs, which raises a feeling of being closed for a long period. The unit of electricity used during the relevant period. All these aspects can be brought in evidence by way of taking out commission for local inspection.
Admissions made by the tenant are a best piece of evidence. Evidence by the neighbors and adjacent shop proprietors, records from the Municipal Authorities to show about the non-payment of professional tax and lack of license for the relevant period are relevant. The absence of records to be kept under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Rules and under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and disconnected electricity – water supply connections etc. would probabalise the case of the landlord. The discontinuation of the filling up of the entries in the account books and the failed state of getting the monthly statements certified by the Sales Tax Authorities, according to VAT, if VAT is applicable to the tenant’s business.

Mere fact that electricity was disconnected would not mean that the tenant was not conducting business in the tenanted premises. The electricity meter reading is important evidence because prima facei non-consumption shown by the meter reader can lead to a presumption that no electricity has been consumed unless proved otherwise. The landlord proved the cessation of occupation by showing (1) there was no electricity consumption for six months (2) Employees of Electricity Board found the premises locked during periodical visits (3) No sale or purchase of goods took place during the relevant period on the premises. (4) No account book was produced. Non consumption of electricity and report of the commissioner that the premise was not used for three years, it was held that the tenant was liable to be evicted.
in a case filed under S.11(4)(v), the best mode of proof of cessation of occupation is to conduct surprise inspection of the petition schedule building by the Commissioner. Landlord has to bring in prima facie evidence in support of the allegations in the form of a report by a Commissioner on the basis of at least a surprise local inspection.

Reconstruction

(S 11 (4) (iv))

if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and license, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction:

Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time:

Provided further that the Court shall have power at any time to issue directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction:

Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent: or

1. Object
The legislature wants developments in the building sector and further, the dilapidated conditions of buildings would be a danger to the occupants of the building as well as to the public. The legislature takes care of the rights of the tenants of a building who were sought to be evicted for reconstruction. So the pre-requisites and condition subsequent were properly detailed in first and second proviso respectively, to the Section 11(4) (iv).
Building needs reconstruction is a ground for temporary eviction of the tenant, to allow the landlord to reconstruct the building. The tenancy is not terminated by an order under this section. The tenant will be given priority or first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him. To safeguard the interest of the tenant there are three provisos for this sub clause. First proviso imposes a penalty of Rs. 500/- to the landlord who willfully neglected to reconstruct the building within the time fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court. The second proviso empowers the Rent Control Court with powers to issue directions regarding reconstruction and, to award the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction and to put the tenant back in possession in appropriate cases. In this Act there is no embargo against a landlord demolishing residential building and constructing a non residential one in its place.
Where the landlord wanted to use the building as passage for a proposed multi-story building, the need comes under bonafide need and not under reconstruction and hence the tenant is not entitled to claim right of re-entry. Building to be demolished to provide exit for the proposed building, the respondents have no need to occupy the entire reconstructed building. order of eviction only under Section 11(4)(iv) and not under Section 11(3).
Case of the tenant that the landlord could have utilised other vacant land owned by him to make the proposed construction. It is fairly well settled that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to how the landlord should satisfy his need. The landlord is the best Judge of his need and it is for him to decide how best to satisfy his need. It is not open to the tenant to contend that the landlord should satisfy his need by utilising the vacant land available behind the tenanted premises. Tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to the site or the type of the new building which the landlord has in mind.

2. Condition for eviction under subsection (4)iv of Section 11

Before the landlord can obtain an order for eviction on the ground of reconstruction he must satisfy the Rent Control Court about the genuineness of his claim and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on.

To constitute this ground for eviction the landlord has to prove six conditions. They are :

1. Building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction.
2. The landlord requires bonafide to reconstruct the building.
3. The landlord must prepare a plan and obtain a license from the local authority.
4. The landlord has the ability to rebuild.
5. The proposal of reconstruction is not made as a pretext for eviction.
6. Material advantage to which the building can be put to after reconstruction.
It is not merely the physical condition of the building that is the criterion to determine the question of need for reconstruction. Many other considerations must necessarily enter into the determination of the question whether the building is in such a condition as needing reconstruction. The age of the building, its adoptability for current use, the economic viability of keeping the building in the same condition are all matters which may have to be taken into account. The locality in which the building is situate might have become much more important since its construction years earlier and the construction of a new building utilizing the ground space to the maximum benefit of the owner may bring in much more advantageous return to him. That may be ground for seeking eviction for the purpose of reconstruction. But the court has the duty to see that such a plea is honest and not made as a pretext for eviction.

Mere dilapidated condition of the building does not justify need for reconstruction. The importance of the locality in which the building is situated may be a ground for reconstruction. The physical condition of the building alone is not the criterion. The “Condition of the building” is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors.

3. Building needs Reconstruction
The factors like situation of the building, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction are also relevant considerations. The High Court has found that the building was 80 years old when the proceedings for eviction were commenced. Almost 20 years have been lost in these proceedings and now the building is about a 100 years old. The appellants are paying a monthly rent of a little over Rs 200/- per month. Madurai is a fast developing and progressing city. There is nothing wrong if the landlord proposes to demolish such an old building and instead construct a modern and spacious marriage hall so as to make better use of the property and augment his earnings.
In an application under Section 11 (4) (iv) what is fundamental is the physical condition of the building. To allow a building to be pulled down where it could, with repair or renovation, continue to accommodate the tenant for a decade or more, simply because the landlord has the capacity and the desire to build, will be to forget the true scope of the enactment and even the realities of the situation.
To inspect the building and note the condition an engineer was appointed as a commissioner, who reported that the building was about 80 years old and there were cracks in the floor and rear walls. Some of the portions were damaged by white ants. This shows that the building is very old and was in a dilapidated condition.
4. Intention of the Landlord
If there is intention, and if there is no suspicion about the requirement, the landlord will be entitled to an order of eviction. The motive is not the criteria or a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.
Factors such as location of the building, age and physical condition of the building, the nature of development of the area where the building is situated, financial ability and necessary plan and license, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction are to be taken into consideration.
It is for the landlord of the building to decide whether it needs reconstruction or whether he should have it for his purpose. It is his property; and he is the best judge on that matter. If a claim is made by the landlord for possession of the building on such a ground, Rent Controller, is not entitled to say that the landlord need not have it for reasons of his own. All that he is entitled to do is to enquire whether the need is bona fide, or whether it is only a pretext to evict a tenant. The right to reconstruct a building or to have it for the landlord’s own purposes is a very valid right attached to the property.
5. Better Returns
IF the landlord feels that the existing structure is not getting proper returns, taking into consideration the fact that the development in the locality has really affected his chance of getting a good income and if by better investment, he can get better return, that decision of the landlord cannot be said as without bonafides.

6. Dilapidated condition

The limited concept of the dilapidated condition of the building as justifying the desire for reconstruction is not justified by the provision in section 11 (4) (iv) of the Act. Whether the landlords requirement is reasonable and bonafide has to be judged by the surrounding circumstances. The landlord need not establish that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. The condition of the building need not be dangerous or even dilapidated nor need to be very old for granting an order under S.11 (4) iv. The Rent Control Court has to take into account the bonafide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord.
Where only minor repairs are required to the building eviction under reconstruction need not be allowed. If the substantial part of a big building has become unsafe for human habitation the tenant of a portion of the building can be evicted even if that particular portion is in good condition. An eviction order under Section 11 (4) (iv) has to be upheld if it is passed taking into consideration the physical condition of the building, the developments that has been taking place in the locality and the material advantage to which the building can be put to after reconstruction.
Need for reconstruction is not confined to a situation where the building is in a dilapidated condition.
If the court finds that the building concerned is in a good physical condition and it cannot be said to be out of time with other buildings in the locality, the court is right in dismissing an application for reconstruction.
There is no hard and fast formula to decide whether a building is in a dilapidated state. This depends on the total facts and circumstances of the case, including the locality and the parties. What may be dilapidated for a high income group in a posh locality may be the usual condition in poor area.
The building has not been collapsed during the long period of litigation on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation is not a ground to deny eviction because the landlord does not have to wait till premises actually fall down.
The building was ‘B’ class and was 60 years old and ‘B’ class buildings could not survive beyond 50 to 60 years. A tenant could not be permitted to defeat the right of the landlord by effecting the repairs of the dilapidated portion.

7. Plan and license
The Act 2 of 1965 take a precaution that if plan and license is required for construction of the building, the landlord should satisfy the court that he has availed necessary plan and license.
Eviction sought for reconstruction of a residential building as a non-residential building. The plan and license need not be produced along with the petition. Revisional authority cannot direct to submit a fresh plan. The provision of the Section requires only a plan and license. If the license is not approved, the building cannot be constructed. Before execution is taken out, the petitioner must produce the approval from Greater Cochin Development Authority. The absence or non-production of the order of sanction from Greater Cochin Development Authority will not be a bar to order eviction under S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act.

Court cannot reject a petition on the ground that the period of licence expired during the pendency of the proceedings. In such a case the court may incorporate a direction in the order of eviction that actual delivery of possession will be given only when the landlord satisfiers the execution coast that the licence has been renewed by the Local authorities. The petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the period of license granted by the Municipality expired during the pendency of the proceedings. To safeguard and protect the interest of the tenant, the court may incorporate a direction in the order of eviction that actual delivery will be given only when the landlord satisfies the Execution Court that the license has been renewed or a new license has been granted by the local authority concerned. When the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the landlord has a plan and license to reconstruct the building, the petition is not to be dismissed on finding that the period of license expired during the pendency of the proceedings. In a case where license is not required for reconstruction neither Plan nor license is to be produced before court for establishing the bonafides of the landlord before the Rent Control Court.
In an Eviction petition on the ground of reconstruction, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to produce the plan along with the petition.
The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submit the plan of reconstruction of the building for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority, the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord-decree holders.
When the landlord possesses sufficient funds and has satisfied other conditions, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to produce the sanctioned plan and permission granted by the municipality for construction of building.

8. Ability to rebuild.
This condition is another precaution took by the legislature to safeguard the interest of tenant as well as the society. It is patent that a person does not have ability to rebuild, will not reconstruct the building. In order to decide the capacity to rebuild, the Court can take into consideration of the estimated expenses for the proposed construction relying on the plan produced by the landlord. On the basis of that estimation the landlord has to prove his capacity.
Ability to reconstruct the building is a matter to be inferred from totality of evidence adduced and what has to be satisfied is the capacity to raise funds for reconstruction. For this regard the following facts will have a bearing namely the status of the person, his position in the society, his financial back ground etc. It is not necessary to go into minute details.

“Ability” means “sufficient power, capacity (to do), cleverness or talent”. So, even if the landlord is not possessed at present of the entire amount required for the construction, it is enough if he satisfies the court that he has got the power, capacity and the talent to raise funds and carry on the construction.
Sufficient means is not the sole criterion for determining the claim of the landlord as reasonable and bonafide to demolish and reconstruct. His application need not necessarily fail if he has not adduced evidence in regard to his possessing of sufficient means, as it is only one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration.
It is not a requirement of law that the landlord should jingle the coins before the court. It is not necessary that the landlord should produce the money before the court to show that he has means to rebuild. Facilities offered by financial institution can also be availed of or assistance can be sought from other persons.
9. The Proposal of reconstruction is not made as a pretext for eviction
Before ordering eviction under the ground of reconstruction the rent control court has to satisfy that the proposal of reconstruction is not made as a pretext for eviction. Proposal is not made for a pretext for eviction is an inference to be drawn based on the totality of the facts established in the case and cannot be said to be an element or fact separately to be proved as it is incapable of adducing any direct evidence to show that it is not a pretext for eviction. Availability of a suitable site with landlord in the vicinity of the tenanted building is totally irrelevant.

10. Condition subsequent to eviction (first proviso)
Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time:
When eviction is ordered on the ground of bonafide own use and reconstruction, a direction to provide one room to the tenant in the reconstructed building is not legal. Further the court when orders eviction under this section time has to be fixed for reconstruction of the building. When no time is fixed in the order it should be presumed that it should be reconstructed within a reasonable time. While ordering eviction under Section 11(4) (iv) the Rent Control Court can fix a time limit within which the building is to be constructed and direct that in the reconstructed building the tenants will have to be provided accommodation. The right of option to the tenants secured to him the right to come back to the building after reconstruction. In the reconstructed building the tenant must get more or less the same advantage as he had earlier.

11. Rights available to the tenant after eviction (second and third proviso)

Provided further that the Court shall have power at any time to issue directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction:

Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent: or

The question whether the building is suitable for tenant to reoccupy for continuing his business is a material question. The tenant need not be allotted identical space or shape, but he must get more or less same advantage as before. The 3rd proviso to S. 11 (4) iv should not be constructed to make it inoperative. When a building occupied by several tenants is reconstructed, it cannot be said that each tenant has an option to get in the reconstructed building the same portion which he was occupying in the old building. There is no provision in the Act which says that a particular tenant has got the right of first option in precedence to the other tenants. In appropriate case the Court can even allow the tenant to reconstruct the building at his cost, if the landlord declines to reconstruct the building after demolition. In a case where the landlord persists in his unreasonable refusal to reconstruct or to complete the construction within the time specified, the Court can permit the tenant to carry out the construction. If the existing building remains without being pulled down, the court can direct the landlord to put the tenant back in possession. If the landlord fails to start reconstruction after obtaining possession, the court can permit the tenant to construct the building in accordance with the plan. The tenant in such a case must be allowed to adjust the cost incurred by him in the rent which accrues later. The Court has power to permit the evicted tenant to carry out reconstruction if the landlord neglects to reconstruct but this power is to be used only in exceptional cases where the court is completely satisfied that there has been willful neglect on the part of the landlord and the failure to reconstruct is attributable almost solely to such neglect.
The wide powers envisaged in the proviso to Section 11 (4) (iv) include the powers even to permit the affected tenant, in appropriate cases, to carry out the reconstruction if the landlord persists in his unreasonable refusal to complete reconstruction.
Substantially the same area of accommodation must be made available to the tenant in the reconstructed building. The landlord cannot insist upon fanciful rentals. The tenant need pay only the fair rent as may be fixed by the rent control court.

12. The third proviso

“Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent: or”

In order to protect the interest of such evicted tenants the statute inserted the third proviso, which gives the right of first option to the tenant to occupy the reconstructed building. Imposition of fine on the landlord depends upon proof that the landlord has willfully neglected to reconstruction need not depend upon any such proof of willful neglect. The powers include even the power to allow the affected tenant to reconstruct the building at his cost, if the landlord declines to reconstruct the building after pulling it down.
Eviction ordered on the ground that landlord required the premises bonafide for the purpose of business after demolishing the present building and putting up a new building in place. Since the order of eviction is based mainly under section 11 (3) the obligation to provide accommodation to the tenant in the new building will not arise. A close look at section 11 (4) (iv) would show that the provisos are not to be read in isolation and the right to seek eviction for the purpose of reconstruction has to be read in the light of the content of the provisos. The provisions in the other two provisos furnish the background to the right of option under the third proviso.

13. Single Petition Maintainable
A single petition for eviction of tenants who are in possession of various rooms for reconstruction is possible. What is important is that the tenants shall be given an opportunity to resist the claim and they should raise objection at the 1st instance & not at the appellate stage. Joint trial can be allowed in petition for eviction of several tenants occupying rooms of the same building. If joint application is not allowed, it may lead to injustice, in multiplication of evidence, chance of conflicting findings, delay in disposal of matters and reallocation of reconstructed building of the tenant. The landlord can file a single petition under section 11(4) iv against various tenants who are in occupation of distinct portion of the same structure in the event of which there is no misjoinder of cause of action or misjoinder of parties and the petition is not hit by multifariousness. But Landlord cannot unite different causes of action in a single petition filed against various tenants whether they are in occupation of the same building or different buildings.
Single petition for eviction is maintainable even when there are two landlords and two buildings but the tenant is the same. The Rent control court has inherent power to direct joint trial of cases, if the joint trial will sub serve the interest of the parties and is necessary in the interest of justice. It is permissible to unite several causes of action against different tenants in an action under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act or against a single tenant occupying the full shop room.
Landlord and his brother come to have absolute ownership over definite portion of the building which was occupied by a single tenancy. The petition filed under section 11 (3) and 11 (4) iv, it is sufficient that eviction under section 11 (3) be passed.
The non examination of any one of the landlords to testify regarding the bonafides under section 11 (4) iv to reconstruct the building is not fatal. The bonafide need for own occupation under section 11 (3) is best established by evidence given by the needy person, whereas bonafides under section 11 (4) iv is capable of establishing by tangible items of evidence. Non examination of landlord in a petition under section 11 (4) iv is not fatal. Bonafide under section 11 (4) iv is a matter to be inferred in an objective manner on an assessment of materials produced before the court.
Two landlords can file a joint petition for eviction of tenants in their respective buildings. There is no misjoinder of parties. The Rent Control Court has got power to consolidate. A suit is not barred within the meaning of O.7 R.11(d) even if it is bad for misjoinder of parties or cause of action. Procedure is a handmaid of justice. Here the building (the whole structure) is to be demolished and reconstructed by the petitioners who own the respective portions of the same structure. Even a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or cause of action is not barred by law.

14. The limitation for applying for re-allotment.

The section does not provide any particular time limit for applying for re-allotment after reconstruction. The plain reading of the provision would show that the landlord is bound to inform the tenant about the completion of reconstruction as the wording ‘first option’. If the landlord fails to do so tenant should approach the landlord within reasonable time. Such reasonable time should be counted from the knowledge of completion of reconstruction availed of to the tenant. If the landlord refuses to re-allot the tenant can approach the Rent Controller by way of filing an IA in the same OP in which the order of eviction was passed, for exercising his first option.
15. Penal Provisions
The penal provision for not reconstructing after demolition of the building as per an order of Rent Control Court on the ground of reconstruction is provided in the proviso to this sub-section itself.
Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, if it is proved that he has willfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time:
The power to award damages to a tenant who was compelled to take another building on lease, pending completing of reconstruction will have application only where reconstruction is made very late.

Tenant Acquiring Building

(S 11 (4) (iii) if the tenant already has in his possession a building or subsequently acquires possession of or puts up a building, reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village;

1. Object

If the Tenant has in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village or if the tenant subsequently acquires possession of a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement or if he puts up a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village the landlord can apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction of the tenant.
A tenant who is liable to be evicted under S.11(4)(iii) is landlord like, as he enjoys, possession of more buildings than necessary for his requirements.

2. Has or acquires possession
Acquisition of plots ideal for construction of building or where construction of storied buildings where started will not constitute ground under S.11(4) iii.
In an application for eviction on the ground that at the time of letting itself the tenant had in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement, the sufficiency of that building has to be considered with reference to the nature and size of the tenant’s business at the time of letting and not at the time of application. But the position may be different in the case of a subsequent acquisition by tenant.
Landlord pleading that tenant has acquired another building and he is conducting the business which he was conducting in the petition schedule building. Pleadings raised by landlord sufficient to constitute eviction.
Unless it is shown that one of the co-owners is put in possession exclusively by any arrangement between co-owners, it cannot be said that one of the co-owners is in exclusive possession within the meaning of S. 11 (4) iii. Acquisition of plot for construction of building will not constitute a ground under S.11(4) iii. Even commencement of construction is not sufficient. Acquisition of a building by partnership in which the tenant is a partner will not be a ground for eviction under section 11 (4) iii.

3. Building acquired by one of the legal Representatives
Building acquired by one of the Legal Representatives can be a ground for eviction, if the building is acquired in relation to the occupation of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, if one of the Legal Representatives acquired building for their own benefit with their own funds, the court could deny relief under section 11(4) iii. The burden of proof would be on the tenants to establish that the buildings acquired by one or some of the Legal Representatives alone and that they have no connection or right in the business being conducted in the tenanted premises or that they do not occupy the tenanted premises.
Acquisition of buildings by one of the co – tenants, cannot entail eviction of common tenancy.
4. Reasonably sufficient for his requirement
If the premises from which eviction is sought is used not only for residence but also for profession with the consent of landlord, tenancy cannot be terminated on the ground that the tenant has acquired a building suitable for residence, but not suitable for his profession.
If the tenant acquired a building or is in possession of another building suitable for his business he is liable to be evicted. The tenant had leased out his newly put up building is not a defense against landlords claim under S.11(4)iii because he is not in possession of the newly put up building. Merely because the building the tenant has got is having lesser area than the petition schedule building, petition under Section 11 (4) iii cannot be rejected. If it is shown that the tenant has got another building, burden shifts on him to prove that he building is not sufficient for his purpose.
The expression “reasonably sufficient for his requirement” is of relative amplitude and its application differs from case to case. The word “reasonable” is not capable of precise definition. ‘Reasonable’ signifies “in accordance with reasons” and in the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact. Sufficiency of one’s requirement cannot be tested merely on the assertion of the tenant that such and such are his requirements. No straightjacket formula can be evolved for the purpose, nor could a yardstick be provided to measure reasonable sufficiency of one’s requirements. Newly acquired building by tenant if reasonably sufficient for his requirement would attract S.11(4)iii.

5. In the same city town or village
The building acquired by the tenant must be in the same city town or village. The building need not be in the same locality, locality being in the near vicinity. Unlike suitable building available in the locality under section 11 (3) second proviso here building reasonably sufficient for the requirement in the same city town or village is sufficient. Suitable building available in the locality and tenant acquired building reasonably sufficient for his requirements are deferent.

6. Tenant transferring the building during the pendency of the proceedings
During the pendency of an application for eviction tenant gave up possession of a building which is reasonably sufficient for his (tenant’s) requirement in the same town. Landlord’s claim for eviction under Section 11-(4) iii cannot be defeated by this subsequent conduct of the tenant and cannot claim protection of the second proviso of Section 11 (3).
Subsequent event can be taken into consideration but where such fact is created by act of one party by which he cannot defeat a right of the other party. If the building subsequently acquired by the tenant was in existence as on the date of eviction petition, he is liable to be evicted. A party by his own act cannot defeat a right already accrued in favour of the party who seeks eviction by disposing off the building acquired by him he cannot defeat the landlord who seek eviction under section 11(4) iii.
If the tenants transfer the building that was in their possession and ownership six months prior to the disposal of the application, the same cannot negative the ground under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. the subsequent event that can be taken note of normally cannot be an event or an action engineered by the tenants themselves and which has got an impact on the ground alleged in the application.
Building owned by the tenant sold during the pendency of petition, the tenant cannot by his own act defeat the right already accrued on the landlord.
Eviction ordered on the ground that tenant owned another building. Tenant’s building acquired after order of eviction. Event of acquisition of buildings by the Government 21 years after the tenant had entailed liability to be evicted under S.11(4)(iii) will not result in eclipsing the valuable right accrued in favour of the landlord for evicting the tenant on that ground.