INTRODUCTION

This Act has changed the concept of controlling to regulation. The Punjab Rent Act,
1995 although received the assent of the President of India on 26th March, 1998 but was
published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 10th October, 2012 due to certain
reasons. With an aim to provide this basic shelter and with a sense of duty towards those
who do not have premises for residential or other purposes, this act was passed. Further,
to formalise the rent structure and bringing some dispute resolution mechanism between
the landlord and the tenant is the main objective of this Act.
Also, the constitutional validity of this Act was challenged in the case of Bar Council of
Punjab & Haryana v. State of Punjab on the ground of violation of the constitutional
mandate of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive and in this
regard reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Namit
Sharma v. Union of India. During the proceedings an amendment was made for
conferring the powers of Rent Authorities and Rent Tribunals on the Judicial Officers
instead of Sub Divisional Officers etc. and was notified on 29th August, 2014. Hence, the
Writ Petition became in fructuous and was disposed off.
EVICTION- MEANING

Eviction means ‘to recover property from any one by judicial process’ according to
Murray’s Dictionary. An extract from lit early English case has been used in Stroud’s
Judicial Dictionary to say that eviction is not confined to mere compulsion as it was
formerly understood but ‘something of a more permanent character done by the landlord
with the intention of depriving the tenant of the enjoyment of the whole or part of
demised premises’. “In its original and technical meaning, it is an expulsion by the
assertion of a paramount title and by process of law; a recovery of land etc. by form of
law; a lawful dispossession by judgment of law and an ouster; an act of the landlord with
the intention and having the effect of depriving the tenant of the enjoyment of the
demised premises. The term is now popularly applied to every class of expulsion" says
Iyer in his Law Lexicon. In Wharton’s Law Lexicon eviction is defined as
‘dispossession; also a recovery of land etc. by form of law.”
In Ram Lubhaya v. Dhani Ram, it has been observed that it is evident that the: eviction is
not confined in its meaning, to the "act .of expulsion, but may, in its more modern .sense
be extended so as to cover the whole process by which recovery of the property is
obtained at law.
In Ram Prasad v. Mukhtiar Chand, it was observed' that “evict literally” 'means 'expel
by legal process’. Eviction consists in the physical act of throwing out the tenant from
the building which he is occupying”. It has further been pointed out in this case that the
phrase ‘in accordance with the provisions of this section’ means in the method or; mode
provided by this section, that is, by means of obtaining an order for eviction from the
Controller. This would mean that the eviction shall not take place except when it is in
accordance with the provisions, of Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction
Act 1949. Thus the term eviction, in the context of landlord-tenant relationship would
mean to recover or take back the possession or user of the tenanted premises by judicial
process provided under the Rent Act.

PROTECTION OF TENANTS AGAINST EVICTION

Almost all state Acts specify certain grounds for evicting the tenant which include non-
payment of rent, misuse or non-use of premises requirement for major repair or
reconstruction, bonafide need of the owner and acquisition of a house by the tenant. As
discussed earlier, a need was felt for enacting a law to protect the rights and interests of
tenants against the free will of the landlords. Often one is forced to lease a premise
because he does not have the financial capacity to do so, therefore under section 20 of
this Act, no order shall be made by any court, tribunal or authority in favour of the
landlord against the tenant except in cases provided under sub-section 2 of section 20.
This provision is the lifeline of millions of people who do not have any shelter of their
own

NON PAYMENT- of rent is the primary obligation of tenant towards landlord.

There exists a simple rule of “pay and stay.” The tenant can enjoy the possession of the
property only by paying the consideration in exchange of the same. Such payment is to
include the permissible increases in rent as agreed upon by the parties and permitted in
law The law stipulates that there must be a default for 3 or more consecutive months in
the payment of rent and for the same a notice of demand under S. 106 TPA and Schedule
VII must be served stating 2 months time to pay the Rent and other charges still in
arrears. If the tenant fails to comply with the same the eviction petition is completely
maintainable. However the 1995 law provides that the Notice of demand is a mandatory
requirement before the landlord seeks eviction. The time of default has also been
increased to 3 months and that too with a precondition that the default must be in the
consecutive months. But the esxtension given by court to make payment at first hearing
has been waived off balancing the situation a bi
Eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent the court held that as long as
the arrears of rent are less than the security deposit, the tenant is not liable for eviction on
account of non-payment of rent.
2. CHANGE OF USER (S. 20(2)(B)):
(b) that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they
were let;
Landlord and tenant must mutually agree to the purpose for which the building would be
used. In case the tenant wants to use the rented premises for a different purpose later on,
he must obtain the written consent of landlord to do so. Eg: changing residential to non-
residential or scheduled.

It was held by that the business of general merchandise did not include the business of
selling of oxygen gas, which business was of a dangerous material and therefore, the said
change of business amounted to change of user by the tenant.

.In Mohan Lal vs Jai Bhagwan Landlord rent out shop to the tenant to run business of
English Liquor Vend-Do sale of liquor. The Liquor licence could not be renewed so the
tenant started doing business of general merchandise. Whether this amounts to change in
user? HELD: The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of the purposes of
the Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction of tenants therefrom.
In the expanding concept of business nowadays and the growing concept of departmental
stores, it cannot be said that there was any change of user in the instant case, when the
tenant converted the use of the building from liquor vend business to that of general
merchandise. The building was rented for the purpose of carrying on a business. It was
used for another business which would not in any way impair the utility or damage to the
building, and the business could be conveniently carried on in the said premises.

Temporary change of user

The premises in question were let out to the appellant for "Maniari" [(General Merchant)
Readymade & Cloth Merchant] business. The setting up of a restaurant therein and
serving tea and cold drinks would,
The redeeming feature, however, is that the appellant reverted back to his original
business during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent Controller and for
many years now has been carrying on the original business. so , where the change of
business was only for a very short period and the appellant, during the pendency of the
eviction proceedings reverted to the original business which he is carrying on since then,
and more particularly because all other grounds, namely, arrears of rent, structural
alterations made in the premises in question and bona fide requirement of the landlord,
on which the eviction of the appellant was sought, have been negatived, that the ends of
justice would be better served if the appellant is allowed to stay in the premises in
question as tenant.
In Sudarshan Lal (Died) Through His LRs v. Shrimati Bhushan Sehgal, As per the
respondent-landlord the property in question had been let for doing the embroidery work
and now a hotel is being run therein.
The initial onus is on the landlord. When a landlord states that property was let for a
particular purpose, then it has to be proved. In the present case that evidence is missing.
It is admitted that earlier the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were doing the
embroidery work and presently they started a hotel therein. The purpose of letting on
basis of such a plea can only be taken to be commercial.
When no specific purpose is proved, merely change of user for one commercial purpose
to the other will not make the ground of eviction available.
UNSAFE AND REPAIRS
four rooms were rented out, and were used for office. The roof of one of the room came
down. The landlord sought eviction on the same but the Court held that rest of the rooms
were safe, so eviction was not granted.
The unsafeness of the premises is to be determined on the date of filling of the
application of the eviction on the same ground.
Mandatory Conditions:
1. That the premises or any part have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation
2. Premises are required by the landlord for carrying out repairs or reconstruction
3. Such repairs or reconstruction cannot be carried out without the premises being
vacated.
4. The Rent Authority is satisfied that:
1. The plans and estimates of such repairs or reconstruction, as the case may be,
have been properly prepared and
2. That the landlord has the necessary means to carry out the said repairs
5. If the landlord proposes to change the use of the premises after re-construction, than,
he shall so specify in his application for recovery of possession

Meaning of the term “human habitation”, “unsafe” and “Unfit”

Human habitation does not refer to a building which is used by a human being for actual
residence.
According to the court in Meja Singh v Karam Singh, a building is inhabited by a human
being for the moment, he is present therein and if a building is not safe or fit even for a
moment’s habitation of a human being, then such a building in question would be
considered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Premises used for godown also
amounts to use of premises for human habitation
In Balbir Singh v Hari Ram, it was held that Tenant cannot carry out repairs himself to
defeat the right of landlord. Building becoming unsafe and unfit for human habitation- a
right accrues to landlord to eject tenant and tenant cannot carry out repairs himself to
defeat right of landlord to eject tenant.
The expressions “unsafe” and “unfit for human habitation” are separated by the term
“or” and not “and”. Either of the two ingredients has to be satisfied. Remaining portion
may be unfit for human habitation but may not be unsafe.
Unfit- unsuitable or inappropriate
Unsafe- not safe: exposed or exposing to danger
10. DIMINISHING THE UTILITY (S 20(2)(K))
mere construction of tin shed to prevent entry of rain from windows does not constitute
damage. The construction by the tenant must not only be one effecting or diminishing
value of utility of building but also impairment must be of a material nature.
appellant had taken on lease a room from the respondent for running a dry-cleaning shop.
The appellant later put up a parchhati in the shop for storing clothes. The respondent-
landlord sought eviction of the tenant under section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground that the construction of the parchhati was an
act causing material impairment to the building.
Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the contention of the
respondent. The High Court, in revision, affirmed their findings.
Allowing the appeal, it was, HELD:
(1) It is not every construction or alteration that would result in material impairment to
the value or the utility of the building.
(2) In order to attract s. 13(2)(iii) the construction must not only be one affecting or
diminishing the value or utility of the building but such impairment must be of a material
nature i.e. of a substantial and significant nature.
(3) When a construction is alleged to materially impair the value or utility of a building,
the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the
building either from the commercial and monetary point of view or from the utilitarian
aspect of the building.

11. NUISANCE (S 20(2)(L))

(l) that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been convicted of
causing nuisance or annoyance to a person living in the neighbourhood of the premises
or has been convicted of using or allowing the use of the premises for an immoral or
illegal purpose.

16. OWN USE : BONA FIDE NECESSITY OF LANDLORD : (S 20(2)(Q))

RELIEF FOR SPECIFIC PERSONS

The object of Section 21 of the Act, is to enable allotters of government accommodation,
who in their name or in the name of their wife or dependent child owned residential
accommodation in the urban area concerned must vacate the public premises which were
allotted to them so that these premises may be allotted to more deserving persons in
cases and in default the allotees must incur certain obligations.
 Relief for armed forces
Section 22 talks about the right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to
members of armed forces..
Scope: If any residential or non residential premises is required by a released or retired
person from the armed forces for him or his spouse or his dependent son or daughter for
own residential or non residential use, he can apply for eviction of his tenant for
immediate possession.
If any member of armed forces had been killed in action and the premises were let out by
such member and are required for residential or non residential purpose of his family, or
his dependant within one year from the date of release or retirement from such armed
forces or as the case may be, the date of death of such member, or within the period of
one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later apply to the rent
authorities for recovery of immediate possession of such premises by him. If such armed
person is to be retire from the services, he can apply for immediate possession of the
premises in occupation of his tenant within less than one year preceding the date of his
retirement for his own residential or non residential use or after retirement or for the use
of his spouse or his dependent son or daughter.
Scope: If the person who is a retired employee of the Central or State Government,
requires the premises let out by him, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter for
residential or non residential use for himself, his spouse or his dependent son or daughter
may apply to the Rent Authority for recovery of immediate possession of such premises
within one year from the date of his retirement or within one year from the date of
commencement of this Act, whichever is later.
If the person who is an employee of the Central or State Government and has a period of
less than one year to his retirement, requires the premises let out by him, his spouse or
his dependent son or daughter, may apply to the Rent Authority for recovery of
immediate possession of such premises at any time within a period of one year before the
date of retirement.

Restrictions on sub letting-

Scope: If the tenant after the commencement of this act without permission in writing of
the landlord, -sublet, transfer, or assigns his rights in the tenancy or any part thereof, he
will be liable to evict. According to the Section 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act,
the tenant could sublet the whole or any part of his interest in the property unless
prohibited by control or local usage but this right of the tenant was curtailed and
restricted by the Rent Control Acts. In some of the states, only consent of the landlord is
necessary which may be express or implied or by acquiescence or conduct.
A general authority of subletting was given to the tenant before the commencement of
this Act. Thereafter the premises in dispute were sublet to various sub- tenants without
any specific authority of subletting.
In the case of Shanti Lal Rampuria v. Veda Trading Corporation a general permission
of subletting does not satisfy the requirement of the Act. Consent of each subletting is
essential
. Scope: If sub- tenant who has given notice in writing to the landlord, is not impleaded
in the eviction petition against the tenant he will be deemed to have become a tenant
holding the premises in his occupation directly under the landlord on same terms and
conditions in which the tenant had held the tenancy from the landlord.
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND RE ENTRY- SCOPE: If the landlord obtains
possession of the premises from the tenant on the ground that he requires the premises
residential or non- residential in the same from or after reconstruction or rebuilding for
occupation for himself or for any member of his family or for any person for whose
benefit premises are held under sections 20 (2) (q) of the Act or under sections 21, 22,
23, 24 or 31, he will not re-let the whole or any part of the premises within 3 years from
the date of obtaining such possession without the permission of Rent Authority which
application for permission in the form specified in Schedule IX of this Act.