Parul
Eviction of Tenant under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Parul Madaan 28 Feb 2020

Eviction of Tenant under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973

Introduction

There are certain cases where the relationship between a landlord and tenant takes a different turn and the landlord has every determinant from the rented property. The rent laws in India, however, tend to favor tenants and secure their landlords' privilege. The guide addresses the legal remedies available to landlords for lawfully evicting a tenant under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973(hereinafter called “The Act”).

 

Grounds of Eviction

Section -13(2)(i) Arrears of rent

The tenant may be ejected from the premises where the rent due to him has not been paid or tendered by him within fifteen days of the expiry of the time fixed in the tenancy agreement with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month following that for which the rent is due.

Supreme court in the case, Ladu Ram v. Ganesh Lal, 1999(2) RCR 220 (SC) states that the landlord must allege  and prove three requirements, namely:

1.       the tenant is in arrears of rent

2.      such arrears of rent have been due for more than six months

3.       the tenant has failed to pay the landlord such arrears of rent.

With the exception of these requirements, there is no other legal requirement that a landlord should plead and prove to obtain an eviction decree.

Section-13(2)(ii)(a) Sub-letting

Where after the commencement of this Act, the tenant has without the written consent of the landlord, transferred his right under the lease or sublets the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, he shall be liable for ejection.

The initial onus of proving subletting lies with the landlord, but when a third person is in possession, it must not be inferred that this is a subletting case.

In the case of Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi v. S.B.Sardar Ranjit Singh AIR 1968 SC 933, the Supreme Court held that when eviction on the ground of subletting is sought, it is the landlord's responsibility to prove subletting. Therefore, it was held that if the landlord prima facie demonstrates that the third party is solely in possession of the premises for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence.

Section-13(2)(ii)(b) Change of user

On analyzing this clause, it seems plain that the pride of place for its interpretation must first obviously go to "used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.”

In Mehta Baldev Dutt v. Puran Singh (1980) 1 Ren CR 130, it was held that where premises were originally leased for a specific purpose, any subsequent use thereof that is part of, or ancillary to, the aforementioned purpose would not amount to a user change within the meaning of S. 13 (2) (ii) (b) of the act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Lal Baranwal v. Virendra Kumar Aggarwal 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 178 said that when the premises were let out for selling copies and books, the installation of printing press amounted to change of user.

Section- 13(2)(iii) Material impairment

Material impairment  are intended to change the substantial nature of the building's form and character.

"A landlord, in order to be entitled to the grant of permission to terminate the tenancy, is required not only to prove an act of waste on the part of the tenant but also to prove that the said act is likely to impair materially the value or the utility of the house," Smt. Savitri Devi v. U.S. Bajpai AIR 1956 Nagpur 60 and Charan Singh v. Shrimati Ananthi & others (1966) 6 PLR 780 .

"Mere construction of a false roof which is only wooden or the setting of a wooden stair or making of a few holes in the roof for letting out the smoke from the hotel, cannot be held to be such material alterations which may result in changing the character or nature of the premises. " Shri Anup Chand & others v. Shri Trilok Singh (1977) I RCJ 752.

 

 

 

Section- 13(2)(iv) Nuisance

In the case Dr.Lakhi Ram v. Girdhari Lal and another, 2006(1) L.A.R. 417 (P&H), Shop was initially given on rent for running a clinic. Petitioner set up a PCO / STD booth on the road, many customers started to visit the same booth, which has resulted into causing nuisance to the landlords. Hence tenant is liable to eviction.

Section- 13(2)(v) Cease to occupy

In the case Ram Lok v. Tarloki Nath, 2000(2) PLR 713, the premises of the suit were locked up for a year and two months. The occupant had not only surrendered his sales tax number, which is a clear indication that he does not do business. To crown it all, the tenant, who claims to be doing business at the suit premises, has not produced any account book document to show that any business was actually transacted from the suit premises. These findings clearly show that the petitioner had been proven not to be carrying on any business in the suit property and, in fact, had ceased to occupy the premises for the relevant period. Eviction order is upheld.

 

Did you find this write up useful? YES 2 NO 0
Send
Pawan kr Agarwal   11 Jun 2020 7:14pm
Please send more tips to my mail.
Reply
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.