Delhi Rent Control Act anachronistic legislation: Delhi HC

Delhi HC: The Delhi High court has called the Delhi Rent Control Act an “anachronistic piece of legislation” the “egregious” misuse of which has forced property owners into desperate circumstances as well-off tenants “unjustly occupy premises for decades on-end”.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani was hearing petitions against the 2013 orders of the additional rent controller (ARC) that dismissed eviction petitions of the UK and Dubai-based owners of a property in Sadar Bazar and ruled in favour of tenants.

“This court is compelled to record that while manning the Rent Control Roster it has found that cases abound where very well-off tenants enjoying financial prosperity persist in unjustly occupying premises for decades on-end, paying pittance for rent, while in the process their landlords are forced into impecunious and desperate circumstances, resulting from egregious misuse of an anachronistic piece of legislation, namely the Delhi Rent Control Act,” the court said.

Also read: AIIMS moves Delhi HC against order allowing minor rape survivor to terminate pregnancy

The high court, as a result, allowed the petitioners to evict the tenants.

The petitioners sought the eviction of the premises on the ground that they run two restaurants in London and require the space for expanding the business in India.

The ARC had denied the eviction, noting that the petitioners were settled-in and were running their businesses in London and Dubai, and did not require the premises for their “subsistence or survival”, and that their bona fide requirement did not amount to being an “actual need”.

It also said the premises were too small to run a sit-in restaurant from.

Also read: ED questions ex-Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in DJB-linked PMLA case

The high court set aside the eviction order and said “the financial wellbeing of a landlord, or the financial ill-health of a tenant, were not relevant considerations while deciding an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act”.

The court further said whether the petitioners were able to run a full-fledged, sit-down restaurant or a smaller food takeaway vend was entirely their prerogative.