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.

Landlord, Religious, Charitable, Educational or Public Institutions S. 11 (7)

      Where the landlord of a building is a religious, charitable, educational or other  public institution, it may, if the building is needed for the purpose of the institution, apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building.

Object :

The religious, charitable, educational or other public institutions are given a separate ground for eviction of building belonging to the institution.  This ground is given because section 11 (3) may not be squarely applicable in the case of such institution.  The “other public institutions” should be interpreted on the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ rule of interpretation.  If the building is needed for the purpose of the institution then the institution may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction of the tenant and to put the institution in possession of the building.

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.

Comparative Hardship

The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment analyzed the hardship that may be caused to the tenant while being evicted and the building owner while denying his building for his own occupation and said that “In our opinion, the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far grater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be the sole determinative factor. That hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to move out of the premises in his occupation so that in the meantime he can make alternative arrangement.”

Subletting

11 (4) i if the tenant after the commencement of this Act, without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so:

Explanation: – where on the partition of a joint family or of the rights of co-tenants or on the dissolution of a firm, the right of the joint family or the co-tenants or the firm under a lease is vested in a member of the joint family, or a co-tenant or a partner, as the case may be, whether by act of parties or otherwise, no transfer by the tenant of his right under the lease shall be deemed to have taken place within the meaning of this clause; or

Provided that an application under this clause shall not be made for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy unless the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and the tenant has failed to terminate the transfer or the sublease as the case may be, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof.

1. Object

Though section 4 (2) of the Act 2 of 1965 provides for an implied termination of tenancy in case of subletting, that provision provides only for giving notice of vacancy before the accommodation controller. But the subsection 4 (i) of section 11 provides the ground for eviction. Section 11 (2) and section 11 (4) i has some resemblance in the prerequisites, the registered notice is mandatory for both these grounds. According to the provision of the T.P. Act the sub lease should be specifically barred at the time of leasing. But Act 2 of 1965 provides a bar to the tenant not to sublease unless the landlord grants consent. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is a self contained legislation and it is wholly unnecessary to go outside the statute and determine whether the tenant is liable to be evicted or not under the Transfer of Property Act.

2. Scope
Subletting the whole or part of the building or assignment of tenancy right without express permission of the landlord is a ground for eviction. Once the landlord proves subletting or parting with possession or assignment to the satisfaction of the court, the landlord is as of right entitled to get an order of eviction, he need not have to establish further that his claim for eviction is bonafide. The rent control act is a complete code in itself Transfer of Property Act section 108 (j) is no defense to an action for eviction on the ground of subletting. Act contemplates eviction in situations where the tenant unauthorisedly transfers his right under the lease without the landlord’s consent even when the transfer does not amount to subletting.

3. Sub letting.
The Rent Act does not prohibit tenant to permit use of the premises so long as tenant remains in possession of the rented premises. Such permission to others to use premises does not amount to sub-letting. A room in a Hotel or boarding house has been taken out of the definition of Building. Therefore, a room in a Hotel given in possession to the lodger does not amount to sub-letting.
Even if the lease deed confers power on the lessee to sublet, a Rent Control petition could be maintained against the lessee and sub-lessee on any of the grounds other than S. 11 (4) i . Even if the lease confers tenant right to sublet, that right is available only during the contractual tenancy, ie. within the lease period. Thereafter when the statuary tenancy beings the tenant will not get the benefit of the contract, During the statutory tenancy period the tenant has got the rights conferred by the statute and not the contract.
No period of Limitation is prescribed for filing Rent Control Petition on the ground of sub-letting. Subletting do not create any new right on the Tenant against landlord on the other hand he loses his protection of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. In the event of losing such protection he should definitely suffer the consequences as provided in S. 11 (4) i.
The right to seek an order of eviction is available to the landlord Under section 11 (4) i from the date of commencement of Rent control petition, and not from the date on which the Act was made applicable to the area.

The Subletting taken place before the Rent Control Act take into effect. Subletting must necessarily be after Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. The petition is not sustainable as per the clear wordings of S.11 (4) i.
Even if the subletting is only a portion of the building the landlord gets the right to evict the tenant from the whole building let to him. Exclusive possession of, at least of a portion of the building has been transferred by the tenant to the alleged sub tenant and that the tenant has miserably failed in establishing that the jural relationship between him and the alleged sub tenant is that of employer and employee, will result in an order of eviction from the whole building. Unless tenant adduces cogent evidence that the jural relationship between the tenant and the alleged sub-leasee is that of employer and employee, the ground of sublease under section 11 (4) i will be made out. Creation of single tenancy for two rooms of which one was sublet can result in eviction whole tenancy.

As the finding of the sub-letting is a finding of fact, the High Court is bound by the same.

4. Legal Heirs and subletting
A fresh tenancy was created on the death of the tenant in favour of one son with consent of other heirs. If another son is occupying the premises it amounts to subletting.

5. Partnership and subletting
A tenancy right derived out of partition of a partnership will not constitute subletting. The explanation to the section clearly excludes such tenancies from the mischief of subletting. Existence of partnership between tenant and subtenant is a good defense, the burden of proof is on the tenant. The tenant should prove the sharing of profit of the business, mere production of partnership deed is not enough.
Sublessee contended partnership with original tenant and produced registered partnership deed and sales tax registration. Original tenant remained ex parte to proceedings. No pleading or any evidence to show that there was any sharing of profits. So partnership deed found to be a camouflage created to circumvent the provisions contained in S.11(4)(i).
Partnership deed is relied on to contend that the jural relationship between the tenant and the alleged sub lessee is that of partners. Very nominal percentage of the capital which is contributed by the tenant and tenant’s share in the profits is also very nominal. The alleged sub lessee is the Managing Partner. The tenant is not given any part in the management of the affairs of the firm’s business which is to be conducted in the schedule building. The tenant was if at all only a dormant / sleeping partner. The physical possession of the building as well as the right to conduct of business therein was with The Managing Partner and that despite the partnership deed the tenant was not actually taking part in the business at all and that the very execution of partnership deed was to cover up the real arrangement between the parties. The finding is that the tenant does not carry on business at all and that the partnership itself is a camouflage of covering up the sublease.

On dissolution of the partnership firm all the rights of the tenant firm including tenancy rights had been transferred to one of the partners who continued in occupation. This does not amount to sub letting of the premises. Transfer of the tenancy in favour of a partnership firm of which the tenant is a partner does not amount to subletting. If on the reconstruction of partnership none of the original tenant or their legal heirs remains as a partner, the remaining partners would assume the status of a sub-lessee. The receipt of rent cannot be put against the landlord.
Unauthorised transfer of right of the tenant includes subletting. Where the rented premises let out to a tenant is placed in exclusive possession of another person with an attempt to camouflage the subletting, by an agreement of an ‘agency’. It was held that exclusive possession with full control clearly amount to sub-letting and the agreement of agency cannot hide the real transaction. Tenant entering into an agreement with a third party, allowing him to take possession of the entire premises, giving full power of control and management over the leased property. It is only a camouflage to suppress the fact of sub-letting the property.
Recital in the rent deed indicated that lease was in favour of a firm. Rent was paid on behalf of the firm. The Partner who had signed the rent deed retired and firm continued by other partners. There was no subletting.
The fact that Local authorities license for trade is in the name of original tenant cannot rule out the possibility of another person in possession. Similarly failure to supply the name of the sub lessee and failure to impugn partnership deed as a sham document by amending the pleadings also cannot be fatal to the landlord.
It is well settled that if the tenant forms a partnership and carries on his business, there is no exclusive transfer of possession. But if the partnership is sham and real purpose is subletting, the disguised partnership deed is not to be looked into. In such case there is no genuine partnership despite legal devices to camouflage the subletting. When tenant parts with exclusive possession of business premises to stranger other than close blood relation, in the absence of contrary evidence passing of consideration can be presumed. The payment of consideration is personal to the tenant and the sub-tenant ant it is not possible to prove it by direct evidence and, thus, an inference can be drawn that the passing of possession to the sub-tenant by the tenant is for consideration. The landlord does not have to prove that the transfer is for valuable consideration, there is a presumption of consideration under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act against the tenant. When the transfer is made to a close relative, consideration need not be proved at all and in such case only the transfer of exclusive possession needs only be proved.
The law of partnership applied only to the partnership and not to the landlord-tenant relationship. The tenant cannot violate any of the provisions of the Rent Control Act on the basis of the partnership agreement with the third parties. So far as the right of the landlord seeking eviction is concerned, the main question will be whether there are any grounds under the Rent Control Act entitling the landlord to get eviction.
Tenant formed partnership – tenant died – business by other partner amount to sub-lease. The evidence does not disclose that the landlord had accepted the partnership arrangement. The entire affairs of the firm and the management were looked after by the tenant during his life time. There was no transfer of possession of the tenancy in favour of another while the tenant himself was a partner. When the tenant ceases to exist, the tenancy right was taken over by the respondent, which is a transfer from the original tenant as far as the landlord is concerned. This change of possession falls within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. Existence of partnership between the tenant and the subtenant is a valid defense to the plea of subletting. Creation of partnership is not subletting but when the original tenant dies the other parties cannot continue in the building because the partnership is not the tenant. where the original tenant parted away with legal possession by inducting a firm of which the original tenant is not even a partner and such parting away with the possession was without the knowledge and consent and much less the written permission from the landlords.
The sub tenant claims that he is in possession of the building on the basis of a partnership. Effect of an unregistered partnership and matters to be considered by the court is discussed. The Rent Control Courts should be slow to place reliance on partnership which are not registered in accordance with provisions of the Partnership Act even when they are setup in defense.
Persons who were original tenants of the landlord and who were in possession of the premises have entered into a transaction evidenced by Ext. B1, with petitioners 2 to 8 and a new partnership has come into existence. The property, which was in possession of the original tenants, thus continues in possession of all the partners of the new partnership firm, which includes the original tenants as well. Such a transaction does not bring about sub-lease to enable the landlord to seek eviction invoking S.11 (4) (i).
If the original tenant converts the business into a limited company or into a partnership retaining control, it does not amount to subletting or transfer. However, if he retires or severs his connection with the partnership the same amounts to subletting.
Building let out to a Co-operative society. The society merged with another society and transferred all assets including the building to the latter society tantamount to sublease.
The landlady was not aware of the partnership formed by the original tenant. Even after the death of the original tenant she had no reason to suspect that the revision petitioners who are some of the sons of the original tenant were paying the rent in their capacity as partners of a firm. She came to know of the partnership only on receipt of Ext. A-2 reply notice. If may also be noticed that Ext. A-2, the stand taken by the revision petitioners was that there was subsequent lease in favour of the firm. The revision petitioners failed to prove that allegation. Therefore, the contention that the landlady accepted the revision petitioners as her tenant, is without any merit.
If the purpose of such partnership may ostensibly be to carry on the business in partnership but the real purpose was subletting of the premises to such a person who is ostensibly a partner then the same would be deemed to be an act of subletting coming within the mischief of S.11(4)(1).

6. Pre-requisites for eviction under section 11 (4) i.
The pre-requisites for eviction under subletting are 1) there must be subletting without the consent of the landlord. 2) Registered Notice to the tenant if the suit for subletting is for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy and the sub tenancy was not removed within 30 days. In the case of repeated act of subletting the notice need not be repeated for every occurrence.
To prove subletting two ingredients are necessary to be proved, (i) exclusive possession of the sub-tenant (ii) valuable consideration by the sub-tenant to the head tenant. The ingredients of unauthorized subletting and transfer of tenant’s rights under the lease necessary under section 11 (4) i are in the alternative and not cumulative. The landlord needs only to prove any one of them. The landlord need not prove positively that the transfer is for valuable consideration. Considering the fact that payment of rent by a sub-tenant to the tenant is always a secret arrangement between them, proving the fact by documentary evidence should not be insisted.
Even if there is no express prohibition in lease deed regarding subletting, the landlord can seek eviction on the ground of subletting.

The landlord needs only to show that the sub-lessee is in possession on the date of petition. If the tenant fails to terminate the sublease within the statutory period, the ground of subletting arises. The fact that there was delay in filing the Rent Control petition is of no consequence. Expression ‘to terminate the transfer or the sub lease’ used in the proviso to S.11(4)(i) means full and effectual termination of sub-lease or transfer in the sense that the alleged sub lessee or transferee is sent away from the building.

Subletting for more than one year through a non registered instrument is a valid ground for eviction but the alleged subletting should continue till the petition date.
For getting eviction on the ground of sub-letting the landlord has to prove that in between the tenant and the sub-Tenant there is a relationship of lessee and lessor and the possession of the premise was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of the sub tenant. The landlord is expected only to establish the presence of sub-lessee in the premises with whom landlord has no jural relationship. Burden is entirely on the tenant to establish the jural relationship between him and the sub-lessee. And when a person other than the tenant is found to be in the building, the burden is on the tenant to show there is no sub-lease or transfer of possession. In order to prove a sub-lease there must be transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property and there must be parting of legal possession. Transfer of exclusive possession is prima facie evidence of tenancy although circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create a lease. Once the landlord has established that a person other than the tenant is in occupation of the premises burden shifts to the tenant to prove the relationship of tenant and the person occupying the building and rebut the presumption of sub lease. A person who is inducted as a sub-tenant without the consent of the landlord need not be made a party in ejectment suit filed against the tenant, but, if the alleged sub-lessee claims some independent right, those can be agitated in separate proceedings. Or he can challenge the decree as fraudulently passed and obtained in fraud of his rights.
A legatee under a testamentary disposition cannot claim the status of a statutory tenant and resist the claim of eviction for subletting unless the legatees are natural heirs.

7. Partial subletting
Partial subletting is a ground for eviction. Even if the original tenant retains some portions with him and under his exclusive possession the tenant and the subtenant can be evicted from the whole building.

8. Notice
“Provided that an application under this clause shall not be made for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy unless the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and the tenant has failed to terminate the transfer or the sublease as the case may be, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof.”

A registered notice is made mandatory to constitute the ground of subletting. This notice is required only for the first instance of sublease. This mandatory condition is incorporated in the form of a proviso. Hence without the notice ground of subletting does not arise. The landlord must send a registered notice to the tenant stating the contravention of the condition of the lease and must give 30 days’ time to the tenant to terminate the transfer or sub-lease; if within 30 days the sub lease is not terminated the landlord can file an application before the Rent Control Court to evict the tenant.

Even though the Statute refers to actual service or refusal only, if there is evidence to hold that a subletting tenant has deliberately evaded receiving the statutory notice, then also the same will amount to refusal of the notice, satisfying the requirements of the proviso.

Appellate Court found that the sublease was after service of notice. Even then eviction is possible. If the sub tenancy has been terminated within 30 days period after the receipt of the registered notice from the landlord intimating about the objectionable sub-lease, the landlord cannot initiate any proceeding for the eviction of the tenant.

Mere plea that the registered notice as contemplated under the proviso to S. 11 (4) i has not been issued, that itself is not a ground to non-suit the landlord. Especially when all the ingredients provided in the proviso has been satisfied.
Landlord send a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the condition of lease but the notice returned with the endorsement “Addressee out of India” landlord also send a copy to the sub lessee who received it. Landlord’s responsibility cannot be equated with the responsibility of serving notice under Order V of CPC. Petition under S. 11(4) i cannot be rejected on the ground that the tenant has not received the notice. Notice sent prior to subletting is sufficient. Omission of sub-lessee’s name in the notice would not render the notice defective or invalid. Failure of advocate to sign notice intimating subletting will not render the application for eviction non maintainable. The tenant is not prejudiced by such neglect.
Notice issued to one of the joint tenants is sufficient to maintain an application under S.11 (2) b (arrears) and also under S. 11 (4) i (subletting). Heirs are joint tenants. Notice to one of the joint tenant is sufficient and the petition maintainable.
The sublease or unauthorised transfer subsisted at the time of trial. The tenant having not terminated the sublease or unauthorised transfer within the period of thirty days of receiving the notice cannot avoid the inevitable order of eviction by offering to terminate or by actually terminating the sublease or unauthorised transfer thereafter.
The fact that the suits were instituted by the tenant for ejecting the sub lessee, whether it be on the strength of a mandatory injunction decree or a decree for recovery of possession, will show that the alleged sub lessee was having possession and absolute physical control of the schedule premises.

9. Partition of joint family and dissolution of firm

Explanation: – where on the partition of a joint family or of the rights of co-tenants or on the dissolution of a firm, the right of the joint family or the co-tenants or the firm under a lease is vested in a member of the joint family, or a co-tenant or a partner, as the case may be, whether by act of parties or otherwise, no transfer by the tenant of his right under the lease shall be deemed to have taken place within the meaning of this clause; or

There is an explanation for this clause. The explanation provides protection to the tenant who’s right is derived from the partition of a joint family or on dissolution of a firm provided he was a member of the joint family or partner in the partnership. Then no transfer by the tenant of his right shall be deemed to have taken place within the meaning of this section.

10. Consent
Acceptance of rent from sub-tenant does not estop the landlord from claiming eviction on the ground of sub-letting. Acceptance of rent by the landlord from the sub lessee is not a ground to hold that the landlord has recognized the sub lessee as the tenant. Issuance of rent receipt by the landlord would not defeat the right of the landlord in seeking eviction under the Rent control Act. There is no question of waiver of estoppel or acquiescence. Mere knowledge or inaction or even the receipt of rent by the landlord even after somebody else is let into the building, will not deprive the landlord of his right to evict the tenant under S.11(4)(i). Contention that original tenant had surrendered the lease and later the landlord had created oral lease in favour of revision petitioner, in the absence of evidence to prove scuh facts, the plea is untenable.

Neither a new tenancy or a valid sub tenancy in favour of the subteannt has been created on Acceptance of rent from the subtenant. Landlord is not estopped from seeking eviction on ground of unauthorised sub letting on the ground that he had accepted rent from the subtenant. Consent contemplated by S.11(4) i of the Act is a consent to the subletting before the subletting and mere knowledge, inaction or receipt of rent by the landlord even after somebody else is let into the building would not lead to the loss of the right of the landlord. Inaction on the part of the landlord would not be sufficient to amount to implied consent to sub-let. Inaction in every case does not necessarily lead to an inference of implied consent or acquiescence. The inaction of the landlord will not amount to acquiescence, there is no implied consent even if the landlord know about the subletting.
Prior consent to the subletting is a must Mere inaction for some time by the Land Lord would not disable landlord from seeking eviction. If the landlord has given consent to a particular subletting it will not entitle the tenant to sublet the premises on subsequent occasions without the consent of the landlord.

The consent of the landlord is to be with some positive action so that the tenant can be said to have had the authority to sub-lease his lease rights. A consent letter issued by the landlord after the lease, does not entitle the tenant to sublet the building. Consent contemplated under S.11(4)(i) of the Act is a consent to subletting before the subletting. Mere knowledge or inaction or even the receipt of rent by the landlord even after somebody else is let into the building, will not deprive the landlord of his right to evict the tenant under S.11(4)(i).
Continuance of the landlord as a partner in the sub lessee firm amounts to a positive act of consent to sublease the premises.
Silence of the landlord cannot be considered as consent for subletting within the meaning of S.11(4) i There is also evidence to show that the original tenant was tyrannical & the landlords were afraid of him. In that situation were silence or failure to raise prompt objection to the subletting cannot lead to the conclusion that the landlords have waived their right.
The contractual tenancy provided for subletting. But subletting after the termination of the contractual tenancy and after commencement of the Rent Act without the written consent of the landlord will be a ground for eviction. The consent given by the landlord originally will not be available after the expiry of the period of contractual tenancy.
Assigner landlord issued a notice calling upon the tenant to abate the sub tenancy but it was not followed by a petition. The objectionable subletting does not become an authorised subletting by this process. The right to apply for eviction will continue so long as the subletting continues. And Art. 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable to rent control proceedings before the rent controller.
It is clearly provided under the proviso that if the application for eviction under S.11(4)(i) is to be filed for a second time by a landlord against his tenant, the statutory intimation notice under the proviso to S.11(4)(i) is not necessary. The landlord can file petition under this section anytime after the notice. Even after a long period no further notice is necessary.

11. Exclusive possession

When it is shown that a person other than the original tenant is in exclusive possession, the burden is on the tenant to disprove the prima facie case of subletting established by the landlord. Burden of proof is not on the Landlord to prove that the lessee has parted with legal possession. The difference between sublease and assignment is analysed in this case. Inference of sub-letting cannot be assumed by the mere fact that someone other than the tenant is in possession of the building.
When the possession of the building is with a third person, it is the tenant to establish that the nature of subletting is only a licence to possess. If the enquiry reveals that the arrangement though styled as licence is one intended as a camouflage for an arrangement of sublease or transfer of possession then order of eviction will follow. When it is seen that somebody other than the tenant is in possession of that portion, it is for the tenant to explain and establish by cogent evidence as to what is the jural relationship between him and the person in possession of that portion.

There must be a transfer of the legal possession and exclusive right to enjoy the premises, and some amount has been collected by way of rent or compensation.
License or lease the classic test is the test of exclusive possession. If the alleged transfer to subtenant is only license eviction will not be ordered. But if the enquiry reveals that the arrangement though styled as license is one intended as a camouflage for an arrangement of sublease or transfer of possession order of eviction will follow.
The burden of proof cast on the landlord is only a prima facie one. The burden shifts to the tenant to prove the nature of relationship with the alleged sub-tenant when the building is in exclusive possession of another. The landlord needs only to prove the transfer of exclusive possession of the premise for valuable consideration. The burden of proof thereafter is on the tenant to rebut that evidence. The prima face proof of sub lease or transfer can be in the form of oral evidence of the landlord himself or by persons who are aware of those facts. The court has to assess that evidence along with any document which the landlord is able to produce. If the landlord proves that the subtenant is in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises then the onus is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting.
Parting of possession of rented property by tenant to a third party and receiving monitory consideration could establish subletting. The burden of proof is on the landlord and the same will shift to the tenant if the landlord establishes that the tenant has parted the possession. Relationship between the tenant and subtenant is not material for deciding the question of sub-tenancy. The landlord need to prove positively by adducing evidence that transfer of possession was for valuable consideration. Only when it is impossible to draw a presumption under S.114(f) of Evidence Act need it be proved.
Mere knowledge of landlord about the exclusive possession by the sub-lessee does not draw presumption that landlord had given permission and there is no acquiescence by the landlord. On establishing that the tenant has transferred exclusive possession to another person the court can draw a presumption under section 114 of Evidence Act that the transfer was for a valuable consideration, so as to shift the burden of proof to the tenant to disprove the prima face case of the landlord. If the landlord has to prove subletting by adducing evidence that the transfer for valuable consideration. It may not be possible to prove subletting in any case except rarest of rare case.
The tenant transferring the tenanted premises to his brother amounts to subletting. Landlord need not prove positively adducing evidence that transfer was for valuable consideration need to be proved only in cases where it may not be possible to draw the presumption under section 114(b) of the evidence Act.
Sub tenancy or a sub letting comes into existence when the tenant inducts a third party / stranger into the tenanted accommodation and parts with possession thereof wholly or in part in favour of such third party and puts him in exclusive possession thereof.

12. Defenses
To effectively defend a petition for sub-letting make a partnership deed (not Limited liability partnership as LLP is a separate entity and will constitute subletting) with the original tenant or power of attorney from the original tenant. Denial of title can also be effectively applied to defend this ground.
The conduct of tenant in the proceedings cannot be taken against him when deciding the case on merit. Any of the ground under this Act is to be proved to evict the tenant. Order must be in terms of the provisions of the Act. The tenant can make use of all the delaying tactics without any fear of passing an eviction order against him.
13. Section 11 (4) i and 11 (10)

Once the landlord proves subletting, he is entitled as of right to get eviction. He need not further establish under subsection (10) of section 11 that his claim is bona fide.

The rights of a building Owner

The Rent Control Act gives very few rights to a building owner.  When courts refuse to give that limited rights also to the landlord/building owner it is an act which comes within the perview of unconstitutionality.

Bobby Mani

Mohd. Ayub & Anr.Vs. Mukesh Chand,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.

JANUARY 05, 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4495 OF 2006

Head Note:-

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 21 – Comparative hardship indisputably is a relevant factor for determining the question as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not and it is essentially a question of fact. The court would not determine the question only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment.

Chronological List of Cases Cited:-

Ganga Devi v. District Judge, (2008) 7 SCC 770
Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan, (2007) 4 SCC 465
Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil v. Mohd. Gudusaheb, (2003) 3 SCC 101
Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chaganlal Sundarj, (1999) 8 SCC 1
Bhagwan Das v. JileyKumar, (1991) supp. (2) SCC 300

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital partly allowing the Writ Petition No. 296 of 2004 filed by the appellants.
2. The appellants/landlords filed an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the U.P Act’) for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground that they bona fide required the premises occupied by the respondent to start business for their sons.
3. According to the appellants when the house in question was purchased by them the respondent was occupying two shops facing the road and two rooms situate at the rear of the said shops as a tenant of the previous landlord at the rent of Rs.35/- per month. These rooms are situated on the ground floor of the said building. The respondent continued to occupy the said rooms as tenant at the same rent. It is the case of the appellants that the first appellant is carrying on business in three small stalls situated in a shop of the Cantonment Council, the rent of which keeps increasing. The three sons of the appellants aged 23, 28 and 19 years are unemployed. Two sons want to start general merchant business in one shop and the third son wants to start wholesale egg business in the other shop. The appellants’ family consists of 13 members. Their one son is married and has three children and the two other sons are of a marriageable age. The married son wants to live in the room behind the shop. Presently, the appellants’ family is living in three rooms and a verandah with great difficulty. On these grounds the appellants filed the application for release of the rooms in occupation of the respondent.
4. In response, the respondent inter alia contended that he is conducting photography business from the said shops for many years; that he is enjoying goodwill in the area; that he will find it difficult to get premises in the same area; that appellants are financially well off as compared to him; that they own other properties and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if the decree of eviction is passed than that would be caused to the appellants if it is not passed.
5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding inter alia that the appellants are financially sound and other properties were available to them whereas except the suit shops the respondent does not have any place for residence and business and hence, if he is evicted from the shops in his occupation, he will experience more difficulty. The appeal carried from the said judgment was dismissed by the District Court holding inter alia that financial position of the appellants is far better than that of the respondent. They could have purchased a vacant bungalow and started business for their sons. Learned District Judge held that the appellants have purchased the building to make profit and then filed the application for eviction. According to learned District Judge, the respondent was doing business from the said shops for many years and it would be difficult for him to find a place for business. Hardship caused to the respondent would be more.
6. While disposing of the petition filed by the appellants the High Court rightly held that the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant what business his sons should do and the observations made by the courts below to that effect and the findings reached by the courts below on bona fide requirement of the landlord are perverse. However, without going into the aspect of comparative hardship, the High Court directed that only one room out of the four rooms should be handed over to the appellants by the respondent as from the affidavit it appears that the respondent was using it as a passage. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have approached this Court.
7. Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that having come to the conclusion that the need of the appellants was genuine, the High Court erred in directing the respondent to only handover one room to the appellants. The High Court has wrongly granted only partial relief to the appellants without going into the aspect of comparative hardship. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by Lrs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil v. Mohd. Gudusaheb, (2003) 3 SCC 101 Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770
8. Shri Achal Chabbra, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the High Court has balanced the interest of both sides and hence no interference is necessary with the impugned judgment.
9. There is no challenge to the High Court’s finding that the appellants’ requirement is bona fide. The respondent has not assailed the High Court’s order. We concur with the High Court on this point. However, the High Court erroneously held that the view expressed by the courts below that greater comparative hardship would be caused to the respondent if decree of eviction is passed is correct so far as two rooms occupied by him for residence and one room in which he is running a shop is concerned. The High Court observed that no hardship will be caused to the respondent if one room is directed to be handed over to the appellants because it was used as a passage by the respondent. Surprisingly, the High Court has not given any reasons why only partial relief was being granted to the appellants. In fact, it has not discussed the issue of comparative hardship at all. Since this issue is of utmost relevance and the application of the appellants is of the year 1998, we proceed to deal with it.
10. Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act provides for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The fourth proviso thereof states that the Prescribed Authority shall take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed.
11. Rule 16 (2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 ( for short, ‘the said Rules’) states which facts the Prescribed Authority has to consider while dealing with an application for release under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act. Rule 16 (2) refers to building let out for purpose of any business and the facts which have to be taken into consideration are:
(a) length of tenancy of the tenant;
(b) availability of suitable accommodation for tenant;
(c) whether the landlords existing business is more flourishing than that which is proposed to be set up by him in the leased premises and
(d) need of self-employment of a son or married or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter or a male lineal descendant of the landlord who has completed his or her technical education and who is not employed in government service.
12. In Ganga Devi this Court held that comparative hardship indisputably is a relevant factor for determining the question as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not within the meaning of the provisions of the U.P. Act and the said Rules and it is essentially a question of fact. This Court observed that Rule 16 provides for some factors which are required to be taken into consideration. This Court clarified that the court would not determine the question only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment. This Court referred to its judgment in Bhagwan Das v. JileyKumar, (1991) supp. (2) SCC 300 where it is observed that the outweighing circumstance in favour of the landlord was that two of her sons after completing their education were unemployed and wanted to carry on business for self-employment. This Court further observed that there was an additional circumstance that the tenant had not brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of this long drawn out litigation he had made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. This Court also referred to its judgment in Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan, (2007) 4 SCC 465 where it has particularly taken note of the fact that the landlady had no other shop where she can establish her son who is married and unemployed and there was nothing on record to indicate that the business of the father was huge or flourishing. This Court clarified that the length of the period of tenancy as provided under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the said Rules is only one of the factors to be taken into account in context with other facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be a sole criterion or deciding factor to order or not the eviction. This Court held that in the circumstances of the case the balance tilted in favour of the unemployed son of the landlady whose need is certainly bona fide. After quoting the above judgment in Ganga Devi this Court gave six months time to the landlady to handover the premises to the landlord in the interest of justice.
13. In our opinion, Ganga Devi applies on all fours to the present case. The first appellant carries on his business from three small stalls of a shop of the Cantonment Council whose rent keeps on increasing. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants’ present business is more flourishing than the business which they propose to start in the leased premises. All the three sons of the appellants are educated but unemployed. They want to start business in the premises in occupation of the respondent. One of them is married and has three children. The other three are of a marriageable age. In all there are thirteen members in the appellants’ family and they are living in three rooms and one verandah with great difficulty. As against that the respondent’s family consists of four persons and there are four rooms in his possession. It is observed by the courts below that the appellants own other premises. However, details of those premises are not on record. The High Court has rightly noted that this bald assertion is based on conjectures. It is well settled the landlord’s requirement need not be a dire necessity. The court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start. It was wrong on the part of the District Court to hold that the appellants’ case that their sons want to start the general merchant business is a pretense because they are dealing in eggs and it is not uncommon for a Muslim family to do the business of non-vegetarian food. It is for the landlord to decide which business he wants to do. The Court cannot advise him. Similarly, length of tenancy of the respondent in the circumstances of the case ought not to have weighed with the courts below.
14. We also find that the courts below were swayed by the fact that the financial position of the appellants was better than the respondent. The District Court has erroneously gone on to observe that the appellants can buy another building and start business. It has also observed that the appellants had purchased the building to make profit. In this connection we may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil where the District Judge decided the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the tenant solely on the basis of affluence of the parties. This Court observed that if this is the correct approach then an affluent landlord can never get possession of his premises even if he proves all his bona fide requirements. This Court further observed that the fact that a person has the capacity to purchase the property cannot be the sole ground against him while deciding the question of comparative hardship. If the purchase is pursuant to a genuine need of the landlord the said purchase has to be given due weightage unless, of course, the purchase is actuated by collateral consideration. This Court rejected the High Court’s finding that the landlord had secured the premises apparently in a game of speculation. Somewhat similar observations are made in this case by the District Court which in our opinion are totally unsubstantiated.
15. It is also important to note that there is nothing on record to show that during the pendency of this litigation the respondent made any genuine efforts to find out any alternative accommodation. We specifically asked learned counsel for the respondent to point out any evidence to establish that the respondent made any such genuine efforts. He was unable to answer this query satisfactorily.
16. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the view that the perverse findings of the courts below on the aspect of comparative hardship must be set aside. The High Court has rightly found the need of the appellants to be bona fide. It has however, fallen into an error in directing the respondent to handover only one room to the appellants. In our opinion, the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be the sole determinative factor. That hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to move out of the premises in his occupation so that in the meantime he can make alternative arrangement.
17. In the view that we have taken, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it permits the respondent to retain possession of three rooms out of four rooms in his occupation. The respondent is directed to handover possession of all the rooms in his occupation to the appellants. He is granted six months time to vacate the premises in question on the condition that he files usual undertaking before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks from today.
18. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

The catelist for development of Kerala is this

The rent control Act balancing the interest of building owners and tenants will surely pave the way for development of Kerala in a healthy way. Commercial buildings and homes become cheaper and available for rent as the fear of losing the property is extinguished. More money will be injected into the system and the market will grow.