Companies Or Firms Can Invoke S.14(1)(e) Of Delhi Rent Control Act To Evict Tenant For Bonafide Use: High Court Answers Reference

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 is not confined to eviction of tenants for bona fide use by a man or a woman and it includes a tenant who is a juristic entity or any other entity such as a firm, company, etc.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Anish Dayal reasoned that the core of the landlord-tenant relationship is the tenanted premises and not the party individual. It observed,“DRC, 1958 has struck a balance while defining the terms 'Landlord' and 'Tenant'. It has not restricted the said definitions to any specific parties but has in fact expanded it…A perusal of the definition of landlord as provided under the Act would show that the same is inclusive. It is an exhaustive definition but it includes within its ambit any person: • Who is receiving rent; • Who is entitled to receive rent. (Such person need not be receiving rent on his own account. It could be on behalf of a trustee, a guardian or receiver for any other person who is entitled to receive rent); • Who is receiving rent for the benefit of a trustee or guardian or receiver for any other person who is entitled to receive rent.”Thus, the Court held that the definition of landlord is quite broad and the intention is to ensure that no one is excluded from the definition, so long as the premises is a tenanted premises and the person has some legitimate right or authority to receive rent from the tenant.The observation was made while dealing with a reference made by Additional Rent Controller, arising out of 12 eviction petitions filed by various landlords under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC, seeking eviction of the tenants.Since the landlords belonged to a diverse class, including body corporates, juristic entities, public trusts, etc., the tenants argued that Section 14(1)(e) cannot be invoked.It was contended that use of the words 'he' or 'himself' in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC, 1958 along with the words, 'bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself' would be a controlling part of the provision. Even though it would mean to include even the female gender, it however, would not mean that a juristic entity or any other entity such as a firm, company, etc. can be included in the ambit of a landlord, the tenants argued.The landlords on the other hand argued that the definition of landlord under Section 2(e) of the DRC, 1958 shows that it includes any person which need not be a natural person. Further, under Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, a person includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Thus, it was argued that a company is fully covered under the definition of landlord under the DRC, 1958.The High Court held that masculine gender is used in the language of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC, 1958 because of the manner in which the term 'landlord' is defined under the Act. However, on a careful reading of the same, it held, the definition of landlord provided under Section 2(e) of the Act is quite wide and takes within its ambit even an non-natural person.It observed that an indication of inclusion of non-natural persons is clear from the following: a) Use of the word 'person' at least three times; b) Use of non-gender based terminology such as guardian or receiver; c) Use of the word 'trustee' which could include non-natural persons.“Therefore, mere use of the terminology containing masculine gender in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC, 1958 cannot in the opinion of this Court dilute the definition of landlord as, Section 14(1)(e) of the Act uses the expression 'required bona fide by the landlord'. This expression clarifies that the provision focuses on the landlord's genuine need for property and not on the status of the landlords i.e., whether they are male or female or juristic entities or other non-natural persons such as companies, firms, Trusts, authorities etc., The term 'landlord' hence encompasses all landlords. Thus, landlords who require premises for their bona fide requirements are all fully covered under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC, 1958.”It thus answered the questions referred to it in the following manner:(i) Where the landlord is a company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the premises are required for the use of employees of such landlord, whether such landlord has a choice, whether to invoke Section 14(1)(e) or O.REF. 1/2025 & connected Page 56 of 58 Section 22 of the Act. Answer - Yes, the landlord has a choice to invoke both Sections 14(1)(e) and/or Section 22 of the DRC, 1958 as may be applicable in the facts. (ii) Whether the Chairman, Directors, Trustees, members of the governing body and office bearers, of a company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution qualify as 'employees, within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act and if not whether such landlord for requirement of such persons is...

Companies Or Firms Can Invoke S.14(1)(e) Of Delhi Rent Control Act To Evict Tenant For Bonafide Use: High Court Answers Reference

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Companies Or Firms Can Invoke S.14(1)(e) Of Delhi Rent Control Act To Evict Tenant For Bonafide Use: High Court Answers Reference

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers