ABSTRACT –
This paper fundamentally analyses and acknowledges the 1958 enactment (the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) on various fronts. The subjects of prime concentration in this paper are the accompanying: Historical foundation of the 1958 Act; Definition of proprietor, inhabitant and premises; Constitutionality of the 1958 Act; Difference among rent and permit; Tenancy not made by installment of lease, waiver or estoppel; Tenancy by holding over and tenure at fortitude; Eviction of occupant on different grounds counted in Section 14 of the 1958 Act; Sub-Letting; Eviction: Rights of Deserted Wife/Divorced Wife; Summary preliminary in ousting cases under Section 14(1) (e) and Section 14-A to Section 14-D of the 1958 Act; Limited Period Tenancy; Bar to the locale of the Civil Court; and Deposit of lease.
All milestone case-laws but the 1958 Act are talked about with learned exactness. Ongoing exploration on rent control has shown that rent control contrasts enormously in its belongings here and there, contingent upon the particular arrangements of the rent control laws, their authorization, and market conditions. This paper depicts the lodging business sector of Delhi, India, with specific reference to rent control Relevant writing, both on Indian rent controls and on rent controls in different nations, is additionally studied.
Keywords: Rent, Tenancy, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Statutory Tenancy, License
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Rent Delhi’s Rent Control Bill was approved by both Houses of Parliament and approved by the President on December 31, 1958. It came into force on February 9, 1959 as the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. It extends to areas within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and the Delhi Municipal Corporation for urban areas. Courts are legally bound to read the provisions of the law harmoniously to balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the tenant.
Rent control measures are needed when demand for rental property exceeds supply and tenants are exploited by landlords. These rent control laws (RCAs), including the Rent Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, are intended to serve two main purposes: protect the tenant from paying more than the standard rent and protect the tenant from unilateral eviction.
A LANDLORD PERSPECTIVE
Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 is largely considered tenant-friendly and does not help the landlords cause. Low return rates have almost made the lease a welfare activity for the landlord, and the unwillingness to repair and maintain the property often causes the building to collapse1. Therefore, the quality of the housing is badly hit. Prospective landlords prevent new stock supply from entering the rental market.
LIMITING RENT REVISION
Under Section 6A of the Act, the standard rent, or, if the standard rent is not determined by the provisions of this Act in respect of any premises, the tenancy agreed between the landlord and tenant may be increased by ten per cent every three years. The 1958 Act does not have the mechanism to bring historical rent to the current market rate and permanently gives the tenant the luxury of paying less than Rs 3,500 per month. The law clearly states that all those who pay less will have protection. An amendment in 1988 allowed landlords to increase rent by 10 percent every three years. As a result, a tenant paying a rent of Rs 10 in 1988 hits the ceiling of Rs 3,500 after 184 years. Even paying someone Rs 1,000 in 1988 will cross over in 2027.
If the landlord has spent any improvements, additions or structural alterations on the premises, no expenditure on furnishings, or any necessary or general rent for such premises, and no improvements, additions or modifications have been made to account for determining the premises rent, he may legally increase the standard rent annually.
DIFFICULTY IN EVICTING TENANT
The second debilitating effect of the law is the difficulty the landlord faces in removing the tenant. The conditions under which a landlord can evict a tenant are strict and strictly monitored and can rarely rob the landlord’s property. The Delhi Act has provisions that allow tenants to rely on the tenant after death, which cancels the tenant’s landlord’s impossibility.
Another drawback of the rule is the mismatch between the tenant’s ability to pay rent and the type of accommodation available. Rent control measures have significant administrative costs and extensive approach to law enforcement. Tenants dare by law to make withdrawals and alterations in buildings without the owner’s permission.
THE HIGH COST OF MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY
Under the regulatory regime, rents continue to remain low, while operating costs continue to rise. The situation is even more serious in the case of older tenants who have frozen rents at a historically low level. In the case of these old features, the need for maintenance is high. Old housing stock suffers premature decay and decline because the landlord finds it difficult to manage.
REMOVAL FROM COMMERCIAL PREMISES IS PERMITTED
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 limits the expulsion of tenants from commercial premises because of the commercial space in the city at that time. But that was a long time ago. Now this scenario has undergone a sea change and a large number of buildings and courtyards are now rented out for non-residential and commercial purposes.
The Supreme Court has held that the High Court has failed to meet this provision, reversing the full bench ruling of the Delhi High Court, which refused to change the law in favor of landlords as it has been in force for more than 45 years2. The 1958 Act has outlived its purpose. To eliminate this disorder and reduce the differential approach to the law, the Supreme Court bench of Justice BN Agarwal and GS Singhvi said landlords can now demand the removal of tenants from proven residential and commercial premises based on individual needs.
TENANTS PERSPECTIVE
Many RCAs are products of World War I, requiring stringent rent control for soldiers in accessible accommodation.[1] Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 has become a tool for harassing landlords over the next four decades; in the interests of tenants and even if it works well for them.
LANDLORDS EXPLOITED STUDENTS
While many agree that the 1958 law favors tenants, a section of the tenant community appeals that the unfunded status of the law allows landlords to exploit it. This section is for outstation students studying in colleges in Delhi. These students who are miles away from home have no choice but to ignore the demands of the most defenseless tenants and their landlords.
PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTION
A tenant cannot arbitrarily ask his landlord to vacate his premises. Non-payment or discretionary withdrawals are the only two technical defaults by the tenant, which allows a landlord to take back his property. Under the Status of Rent Control Act, tenants of a legal tenant are entitled to the same protection against eviction as is fair to tenants.
However, eviction can now be sought and sought on bonafide requirements and can be claimed not only for the property owner but also for his or her dependent family. Tenants claim that landlords, desperate to evacuate their property, resort to illegal means, such as paying the reverse ‘pagree’ (interest free security deposit), to evict them or to help organized gangs or locals. Police forcibly removed.
The Delhi Central Business District and its peripheral areas are governed by the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1948. Landlords under the Ancient Rent Control Act have a limit on their right to increase monthly rent, which is 10 percent less every three years.
After the partition, Delhi saw a huge influx of migrants, which pushed the government to resettle thousands of people. The government is cautious about the social acceptance of all these migrants and fears of rejecting and removing tenants without prior notice from landlords.
To deal with this issue, 8 Delhi and Ajmer-Mewara Rent Control Act, 1948, thereafter 8 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, established. Under these laws, tenants are entitled to protect from premature eviction. The motivation behind the law is the protection of economically weaker sections that cannot afford a home or apply for loans because of low credit scores.
Under this law, the government limits the rent, distorts the tenants, and makes it common interest among investors to buy a property in Delhi.4 In 1988, the Act was amended, giving an exemption from rent control legislation of more than Rs 3,500 per month. To this day, the law continues with the same old rules, meaning that landlords now do not have the right to amend the lease. Furthermore, they cannot even evict the tenant unless they are in extreme circumstances.
COURT PETITIONS FOR SEVERAL YEARS
The total number of appeals or petitions before the district and the number of additional judges of the Delhi High Court (HC) is over 10,000. Approximately 27.9 percent of all civil cases related to rent control are under the DRC Act, which has not been amended for more than three decades. In 2010, a group of three lawyers and activists challenged the image of the old provisions of the law.
In January this year, a group of landowners approached the Delhi HC bench challenging the constitutionality of the law. This appeal argues that the property is regulated by the tenant, regardless of the market rent, but was ultimately rejected by the court. The Repeal Committee of the Delhi Rent Control Act pledges to take these appeals to the Supreme Court later this year, where they hope some justice will be given to landlords.
OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGES FACED BY THE DRCA
Homeowners in areas covered by the DRCA are on the fence of renting out their property due to the lack of consideration they can get under the law. The situation is ubiquitous. Residential and commercial pockets of the Central District, where more than 10 percent of litigation in district courts is under the DRC Act.
The law allows landlords to increase monthly rentals by 10 percent every three years. This is in stark contrast to the average increase in rents in these areas over the years. When the Act was last amended, the realization of this rate failed to yield a substantial return on investment for the landlord, since the actual monthly rent was around Rs 10 to a maximum of Rs 1,000 in 1988. The law states that assets will be covered under the DRC Act until the average rent reaches 3,500. Here is an analysis of how many years the property will take to get a monthly rental 3,500, which in most cases runs for more than 50 years.
| Rent as on 1988 (in Rs) | Years until monthly rent amount to Rs 3,500 | ||
| 10 | 184.38 | ||
| 50 | 133.71 | ||
| 100 | 111.09 | ||
| 200 | 90.09 | ||
| 300 | 77.31 | ||
| 400 | 68.25 | ||
| 500 | 61.23 | ||
| 600 | 55.5 | ||
| 700 | 50.64 | ||
| 800 | 46.44 | ||
| 900 | 42.72 | ||
| 1000 | 39.42 | ||
| Source: Petitioners appeal to the Court, January 2019 | |||
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ANCIENT RENT ACT IN RENT DELHI
The DRC law reduces the quality of housing because landlords are not interested in maintaining properties or improving the quality of amenities, which ultimately leads to lower returns5.[2] These laws not only limit supply but also drive out legitimate seekers of rented housing, which resolves tenants for unregistered and unauthorized arrangements.
Deepak Chawla, DCRE Properties, South Delhi said landlords are not motivated to make any improvement in property because of the low return under the provisions of the DRC Act and the PAGD system. But,
This year, the Delhi government has allowed the legislation to increase the rent by 25 per cent to fund the building’s landlords, especially the pagdi system and repair works, as most of these buildings are without safety standards. The rules governing DRC law are generally favorable to the tenant, although some states may take the consequences of the rent control authorities of other states. For example, the Tamil Nadu government has now come up with ways to balance rent control legislation.
The state is expected to increase the rental market in this state to handle eviction disputes. Withdrawing rent control increases property owner confidence by targeting positive rental returns and thereby helping to unlock the potential of the rental housing market.
There have been petitions in HCs of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, calling for the repeal of such anti- rent control laws. While some of these appeals have come to fruition, Delhi may not be far away from establishing a favorable tenancy law for parties, tenants and landlords.[3]
CONCLUSION
The biggest downfall of the Delhi Rent Control Act is that the income from the property is stagnant as the income of the property is stagnant .This has led to the emergence of methods such as key money. Therefore, the law has reduced access to low-income communities for renters, not only because of the black market in rented houses, but because they cannot pay large deposits for rented premises.
Widespread disagreement between the interests of landlords and tenants has led to an increase in litigation under the Act. A large number of criminal cases are in disputes over rental properties.
The 1995 Act replaces the old law of 1958, which protected immigrant people from the arbitrary rent increase of wealthy landlords. While property values have skyrocketed, landlords who adhere to rent control regulations continue to receive lower rents. The 1995 law was passed by both Houses of Parliament and was approved by the President, but after the tenants’ street protests, the government lost the will to notify it.
[1] https://www.99acres.com/articles/the-delhi-rent-control-act.html
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.abstract_id=758327
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98362/
Disclaimer: This article has been published in Legal Desire International Journal on Law, ISSN 2347-3525, Issue 22 ,Vol. 7
PALLAVI MOHTA
Student of Law, Amity Law School, Noida, Amity University Uttar Pradesh
