Upgrad LLM

delhi rent act is challenged in high court.

Properties and Finances

Delhi high court’s decision to hear a petition challenging the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has come as a shot in the arm for beleaguered landlords who have been getting paltry rents for the prime properties they let out. The landlord-tenant dispute has once again come into focus with an association of women landlords from the capital recently moving court. 

With the Supreme Court tilting the balance in favour of landlords — allowing them to invoke need even for commercial properties — through a series of rulings over the past few years, the only defence still available to a tenant is the age-old DRC Act which places a ceiling on rent in the capital. 

If the HC now bats for landlords while adjudicating the latest petition, one can expect swift disposal of disputes before the rent control tribunals where such cases are decided. 

Until now, additional rent control (ARC) courts remained bereft of fresh cases because property owners were hesitant to take to court disputes which would drag on for years, even as the tenant enjoyed continuous and unhindered rights of occupancy over a premise. The status quo meant a property continued to be enjoyed by the tenant. 

The only way a tenant can now hope to cling on to a house is by proving in court that his landlord does not actually need the property, a very difficult thing to do. 

Speaking to TOI, advocate Atul Mathur, who takes up property-related disputes, said tenants were becoming increasingly indefensible now that the odds are clearly stacked in favour of landlords. 

‘‘Although it is too early to say anything definitively, since fresh cases are still at the arguments stage, but there is actually no defence left for a tenant living in a commercial property. I have myself advised three landlord clients to move court because their chances of winning have, after the SC rulings, brightened,’’ Mathur confided. 

Lawyers said that for the first time a tenant can be asked by a landlord to vacate his premises. Earlier, non-payment of rent or discreet subletting were the only two technical defaults committed by a tenant that allowed a landlord to take back his property. 

Eviction can now be sought on need. And courts hearing such cases will witness how landlords play around with the word need, since the scope for it has been widened. More importantly, bonafide need can now be claimed not just for the owner of the property but also for his or her dependent family, elaborated another lawyer. 

As petitioners before the Delhi high court, the landladies Shobha Aggarwal, Suman Jain and Seema Khandelwal argue, the DRC Act is ‘‘an archaic legislation that needs to be struck down as unconstitutional’’. 

Provided the high court agrees with these women, numerous landlords in Delhi can now become hopeful about getting much higher rents for the properties that they let out. 

 

 

PLEASE POST YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THIS NEWS.---TUSHARCOSMIC--MY REAL NAME.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE

Court decisons reflect the society since Judges are also human beings and live in society. However whatever precautions are taken no law can be made or Judgement be given to cover all possible situations.

The basic question will always remain who will have more hardship landlord or tanent. If landlord is not able to prove real hardship there is no hope for landlords whatever the court decison.SINCE ULTIMATELY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL SYSTEM WHO FRAME AND REVISE LAWS. And so the legal system will have to favor have nots and not haves.

 
Reply   
 


Properties and Finances

Shashi,I am sorry to say that U do not have a clear vision.A landlord is a land lord forever.It is his fundamental right over the property to sell the property whenever he wishes to do so even if he has given the property on rent,only a time of 4/6/8 months should be given to the tenant for eviction.

It is not the job of the landlord to see whether the tenant would get any place for living or working after eviction.No landlord while giving the property on rent takes this gauranttee.

Laws like DRC should be abolished through out India with immediate effect.Laws like DRC make only the landlords sufferers.

 
Reply   
 
Nationalist

Yes right of title of a property should be guaranteed by the govt. In no circumstances it should be snatched or disturbed. If anyone disturbs the possession of a property of true owner, it should be considered as criminal offence and he should be tried in criminal court. After all govt. takes heavy stamp duty during registration of property. Also a land get registered fraudulently three times then in this case govt. is the beneficiary and have received the revenue thrice for the same land, on the other hand the real owner landed up in big trouble. This area urgently need to be addressed.

 
Reply   
 
POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE

On January 24 , 1848 John A sutter found that his property is gold mine. Where ever you dig there is gold. News spread like wild fire and hordes of poople stormed his property. Hundreds and thousands became millioners and built mansions on his property.

In 1850 Sutter filed a biggest law suit of that time for recovery of fifty million dollars for his loss. And after shuttling from one court to another he got Judgment in 1855 in his favour.

When people squatting on his property learnt about it they burnt courts, blown the house of the owner Sutter, murdered his sons and even tied the Judge and tried to lynch.

From 1855 to 1880 this property owner was knowking to the every politician and every body in authority for enforcement of his rights but no body dared to go against the mob. And one day in 1880 Sutter died pennyless, shoeless, worst than a begger on streets of Washington.

So Madhu I understand your anguish but laws are made by the politicians and only interpreted  by courts. And court decisons are enfored by again people in authority .People in majority vote for politicians and hence they care for them.

This goes on and on and not logical solution for it.

 
Reply   
 
Properties and Finances

Shashi,well said and the example you have given is also a very good one.but this scenario  should be changed.Laws are made by the not only by politicians but by the law-makers also.DRC1995 could not be implemented but now the judgements are coming in favor of the landlords and things are changing silently.I feel as DRC has been challenged in the high court and the petition has been accepted,some thing positive will happen in the near future.

Meanwhile you can see my video --Legal injustice by Indian Govt.----on youtube,under my real name tusharcosmic.

 
Reply   
 
POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE

Please read again I have posted example of judgment in favour of landlord and still it could not be implemented.It was highest compansation awarded in the history of USA. You can not do any thing against majority.

 
Reply   
 
Properties and Finances

shashi,I have read whatsoever you have written,what I mean to say is this of course it is difficult to oppose majority but (We can take example of DRC1995 which could not be implemented) but I am sure that things can be changed with efforts.

So instead of saying that we can not do anything against majority ,I would like to say that we can go against majority if we are right but it is very difficult thing to be done but it can be done .

And only the people who have the courage to go against majority have some worth.

 
Reply   
 
Nationalist

Sir, It is not due to majority or minority rather it is lacklusture/apathatic approach of legislation which itself is inefficint/incompetent.

 
Reply   
 
POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE

From where Govt comes , from people. Not landlords but tananets who are in majority. When you  appreciate this reality than only you can see the problems in proper perspective.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x