Landlord's Rights Under Rent Control Act Can't Be Waived By Contract With Tenant: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the rights conferred upon a landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be waived off by entering into a private contract/ agreement with the tenant.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed,“It is settled law that a contract barring a legal remedy is void under section 28 read with section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regardless...
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the rights conferred upon a landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be waived off by entering into a private contract/ agreement with the tenant.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed,
“It is settled law that a contract barring a legal remedy is void under section 28 read with section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regardless of any consideration that may have been received for such contract.”
The Petitioners-tenant had claimed that the predecessors-in-interest of the Respondents (landlord) had waived their rights under DRC Act and thus, the Respondents could not now seek Petitioners' eviction for bonafide need under Section 14(1)(e).
It was argued that the aim of the DRC Act is to control eviction of tenants; and therefore, there is no restriction on a landlord to agree to a position in contravention of the provisions of DRC Act.
The High Court noted that the Petitioners had been renting the property for 85 years now. However, it was of the opinion that a compromise with the tenant cannot bar the landlord from filing an eviction petition.
“Besides, in any case, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents could not have conceded that neither he, nor the other landlord, nor any of the dependent family members would ever have any bona-fidé requirements, since a bona-fidé requirement can arise at any subsequent time in the future,” the Court said.
It added that the Petitioners' argument that the contractual arrangement with the Respondents amounts to a waiver of the statutory right of the respondents to file the eviction petition, is “misconceived and untenable”.
As such, it dismissed the plea with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
Appearance: Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena and Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for Petitioners; Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed, Advocate for R3. R-3 in-person.
Case title: Mohd Yahya & Ors v. Farat Ara & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1520
Case no.: RC.REV. 120/2019