The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) was essentially enacted with the aim of

protecting the tenants’ rights, giving them security, and restricting the landlords’ ability to
evict their tenants unreasonably. It further aims to provide fair rent provisions for the tenants.
The provisions for protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction are necessary as in
absence of such provisions, ‘fair rent’ would become an illusionary provision. Another reason
for inclusion of protective provisions was the shortage of accommodation during the time.

The Supreme Court in the case of Rehbar Productions Private Limited v. Rajender Kumar
Tandon1 states with reference to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 that The said act which
was brought on the statute book in 1958 is a composite legislation in the sense that while
providing protection to the tenants who under common law could be evicted from the
accommodation, it also restricts the landlords from evicting the tenants without reasonable
cause. The Courts are therefore, under a compulsion to read the act harmoniously so as to
balance the rights of the tenant and the landlord.

The Act was amended in 1988 to exclude the properties commanding monthly rent over Rs.
3500 (at that time) from the purview of the Act.

In D.C. Bhatia v. Union Of India2, the Supreme Court observed that the amendment of 1988
had different objects than the objectives of the parent Act of 1958. It said that the objective
was not to protect the weaker section alone but to grant some protection to the landlords as
well.

In Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. Pawan Kumar Bansal 3 , the Delhi High Court stated that if
both the parties are on an equal footing and the landlords found to be suffering innumerable
hardships, the whole question acquires a different perspective. The Act, was no doubt,
enacted primarily with the basic objective of giving protection to the tenants, and to save
them from harassment by the avaricious or overbearing landlords, but over the years, this
legislation has at times, been noticed to be turning into a tyranny, for the landlord, ironically
under the veneer of legal support.

1
Civil Appeal no. 1785 of 1998 (Supreme Court, 26-03-1998).
2
(1995) 1 SCC 104 Supp 4 SCR 539.
3
(1984) Delhi.
Therefore, it can be said that the legislation, although introduced with the purpose of granting
protection to the vulnerable tenants now provides for protection to both the tenants and the
landlords.

TENANT

In order that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 may apply there must exist the relationship of
landlord and tenant between two persons in relation to any premises contemplated by the Act.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to first understand the meaning of the word ‘Tenant’ as
described under the Act.

Section 2(l) of The Delhi Rent Control Act defines the term ‘Tenant’. In simple terms, a
tenant can be defined as a person who pays rent or on whose behalf rent is paid for using a
premises under a contract of tenancy.

The definition is exhaustive in nature. It is divided into three parts. The first part is general in
nature whereas the second part is inclusive in character. The said definition also covers under
its ambit, a sub-tenant4 and any person continuing in possession after the termination of
tenancy5 along with his legal representatives6 under certain conditions.

The provisions providing for the inclusion of the legal representatives of the person
continuing in possession of the premises after the termination of tenancy under the definition
of a ‘Tenant’ in case of such person’s death were added to the Legislation by way of an
amendment in 1976. Prior to the 1976 amendment, Statutory Tenancy came to an on the
death of the tenant. The 1976 amendment provided for transmission of tenancy to certain
persons on certain conditions.

The definition puts emphasis on the obligation on part of the Tenant to pay rent. For the
purpose of this Act, it is immaterial who actually makes the payment of the rent. However,
mere payment of rent cannot bring about the relationship of a landlord and tenant 7. There has

4
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, § 2(l)(i), No. 59, Acts of Delhi State Legislature, 1958 (India).
5
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, § 2(l)(ii), No. 59, Acts of Delhi State Legislature, 1958 (India).
6
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, § 2(l)(iii), No. 59, Acts of Delhi State Legislature, 1958 (India).
7
H.S. Rikhy v. N.D.M.C., AIR 1962 SC 554.
to be some agreement between the parties. Conversely, if there is a relationship of landlord
and tenant, the non-payment of rent will not negate the tenancy8.
In Om Prakash v. Mahender Kumar Malhotra9 one Mr. Om Prakash was liable to pay rent
to the landlord for use of premises for the benefit of the joint family. The question before the
Court was whether the whole joint family become the Tenant? The Court was of the view that
the joint family does not qualify as a tenant.

In the case of Mohinder Kumar Madan v. Madan Mohan Lal 10 a shop was let on rent to an
individual but was being used by the joint family to carry on their business therein. Rent was
paid by the brother of the individual to whom the shop was given on rent. The Court held the
view that the brother of the individual or the joint family shall not be considered as ‘tenants’.

In the case of Trilok Singh v. Ram Prasad11 the premises was initially let to an individual.
The individual later formed a Partnership Firm and used the premises for the purpose of the
firm and the rent was also being paid by the firm. The Court was to decide whether the
Partnership Firm be considered the Tenant since it was the firm that was paying the rent. The
Court answered the question in negative and stated that it is only the individual who is the
Tenant and not the Partnership firm.

In B.P. Achala Anand v. Appi Reddy12, a couple was staying in a rented premises. According
to the contract, the Husband was the tenant. Eviction proceedings were ongoing against the
couple, during the pendency of which they split by way of a mutual divorce. The Husband,
having left the premises, did not contest against the eviction proceeding. The question was
whether the Wife has a right to contest the claim for eviction? The Court was of the view that
the wife is not entitled to contest against the claim of eviction.

I. SUB-TENANT:
Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has the effect of
including a Sub-tenant in the definition of a Tenant.

8
Ude Ram v. Tej Karan, 1975 RCR 272.
9
1971 RCR 552.
10
1972 RCR 112 (SN).
11
1971 RCJ 420.
12
Civil Appeal No. 4250 OF 2000 (Supreme Court, 11-02-05).
 The purpose of including a sub-tenant under the ambit of the meaning of the word
‘Tenant’ was to confer certain rights and obligations on such sub-tenant wherever
the statute requires under various provisions of the Act, of that which is conferred
on a Tenant. However, this provision cannot apply where the Act itself treats both
as separate entities such as the provisions under Section 14(1)(b), Section 16,
Section 17, and Section 18. Otherwise, these provisions would be rendered
meaningless. Therefore, in such provisions which specifically deal with inter se
relationship between a tenant and a sub-tenant, the two cannot be equated with
one another.
The inclusion of a sub-tenant under the definition of the term ‘Tenant’ leads to
various questions to be consideration by the Courts.
In Prem Narain v. Jenab Bai13 the court observed that Sub-tenancy creates a
relationship between an tenant and sub-tenant but there is no privity of contract
between the sub-tenant and the landlord. The intention behind including a sub-
tenant in the definition of a tenant is only to cover the case of a sub-tenancy
created between the Tenant and the Sub-tenant as per the provisions of the Act
and to not place the sub-tenant and the tenant in the same footing qua the landlord.
As a general rule, a Sub-tenant cannot claim larger rights than the Tenant who
inducted him into possession of the whole or part of the premises. Further, a Sub-
tenant is not necessarily a party in a suit of eviction against the Tenant. He may,
however, be evicted by way of a decree passed against the Tenant.14

13
1968 JLJ 357.
14
Rameshwar Dial and Adarsh, Delhi Rent Control Act, at pg. 95.