JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Faculty of Law
2018-2019

Land Laws Project Submission

Topic- Definition of Landlord, Basic Rent and Tenant

Submitted to: Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal

Submitted by: Varun Mittal
5th year(9th Sem), Section-B

1
 Acknowledgment
It is my imperative duty to thank, Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal for the
successful completion of my Land Laws Project Report And for the
clarity she brings into teaching thus enabling us to have a better
understanding of her subject. I feel obliged to thank her for her unique
and refreshing methods to explain hard to understand concepts.
The very cooperative and friendly staff members in the Central and Law
Library who were instrumental in helping me find the necessary books
without wasting much time.

2
 Index
 Basic Rent
 Landlord
 Tenant: Introduction
 Definition of Tenant
i) Sub-tenant
ii) Any person continuing in possession after the termination of his
tenancy or statutory tenant
iii) When the person continuing in possession after the termination of
his tenancy dies
 References

3
Basic Rent

Section 2(a) 0f Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Defines basic rent

"Basic rent", in relation to premises let out before the 2nd day of June, 1944, means the basic rent
of such premises as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule;

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

Basic Rent

1. In this Schedule, "basic rent" in relation to any premises let out before the 2nd June, 1944,
means the original rent of such premises referred to in paragraph 2 increased by such percentage
of the original rent as is specified in paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 or paragraph 5, as the case may
be.

(2) "Original rent" , in relation to premises referred to in paragraph I, means –

(a) Where the rent of such premises has been fixed under the New Delhi House Rent Control
Order, 1939,or the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance, 1944 (25 of 1944), the rent so fixed, or

(b) In any other case,-

(i) The rent at which the premise sere let on the 1st November, 1939,or

(ii) If the premises were not let on that date, the rent at which they were first let out at any time
after that date but before the 2nd June, 1944.

3. Where the premises to which paragraph 2 applies are let out for the purpose of being used as a
residence or for any of the purpose of public hospital, an educational institution a public library
or reading room or an orphanage, the basic rent of the premises shall be the original rent
increased by-

(a) 12-1/2 per cent. thereof, if the original rent per annum is not more than Rs. 300;

(b) 15-5/8 per cent, thereof, if the original rent pr annum is more than Rs. 300 but not more than
Rs. 600

(c) 18-3/4 per cent, thereof, if the original rent per annum is more than Rs. 600 but not more than
Rs. 1,200;

4
(d) 25 per cent, thereof, if the original rent per annum is more than Rs. 1,200.

4. Where the premises to which paragraph 2 applies are let out for any purpose other than those
mentioned in paragraph 3, he basic rent of the premises shall be the original rent increased by
twice the amount by which it would be increased under paragraph 3, if the premises were let for
a purpose mentioned in that paragraph.

5. Where the premises to which paragraph 2 applies are used mainly as a residence and
incidentally for business or profession, the basic rent of the premises shall be the mean of the
rent as calculated under paragraph 3 and 4.

Landlord

Section 2(e) 0f Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Defines landlord

"Landlord" means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent
of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit
of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so
receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;

5
Tenant: Introduction
The importance of knowing the scope & definition of “tenant” under the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 can be understood by the fact that a major portion of lawsuits filed throughout Delhi are
related to issues arising out of tenancy. Thus it is of paramount importance to have a thorough
understanding of the people who come under the definition of tenant and those who do not.

The Delhi Rent Control Bill was been passed by both the Houses of Parliament and received the
assent of the President on 31st December, 1958. It came into force on 9th February, 1959 as The
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It extends to the areas included within the limits of the New Delhi
Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such urban areas within the limits
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi1.

Rent control legislations are prime example of social legislation. They try to strike a just balance
between the rights of the landlords and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent
the landlords from taking the extreme steps of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or
skilful grounds. These legislations are enacted to prevent the vulnerable class called the ‘tenants’
from the clutches of the landlords, who often to thrive on the predicament of the tenants arising
due to the scarcity of the premises. Due to the scarcity, the landlords often exploit the tenants for
their unjust gains/enrichment and also subject the tenants to un-called for litigation; in answer to
the emergent situations prevailing, the legislators intervene to protect the tenants from the
harassment and exploitation of the landlords, thereby enacting the necessary rent control
legislations2.

No doubt, the rent control legislations are intended to preserve the social environment and are
purposed to promote social justice, but at the same time, some safeguards should also be given to
the landlords as well. In the case of E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and Ors3, it was

1
Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 – An Analysis, available at: https://www.commonfloor.com/guide/delhi-rent-control-
act-1958-an-analysis-49470.html (Last Modified February 12, 2015)

2
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Critical Appreciation of the 1958 Act, by Shivam Goel available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849727 (Last Modified October 10, 2016)

3
2003 (1) SCC 123

6
held that the provisions of the rent control legislations are not to be interpreted with a hyper-
technical approach, which indirectly causes frustration of the mischief. Though the rent control
legislations normally intend to benefit the tenant, but still, the tenant also has a duty to strictly
comply with the statutory provisions of the concerned rent control legislations; if a tenant does
not comply with the statutory provisions strictly, then, the tenant should not be allowed to
avail/reap the benefit available to him albeit the concerned rent control legislation; hence,
equitable considerations have no place in such matters.

Rent Control measures become necessary when demand for rental property far outstrips the
supply and tenants become vulnerable to exploitation by the landlords. Generally, Rent Control
acts, including The Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, are meant to fulfill two main purposes:

a) to protect the tenant from having to pay more than a standard rent, and
b) to protect the tenant from arbitrary eviction.

Definition of Tenant {S. 2(l)}

The term “tenant” has been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 under section 2(l) as:
“"tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is,
or, but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes-
(i) a sub-tenant;
(ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy; and
(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination
of his tenancy, subject to the order of succession and to this clause, such of the aforesaid
person’s-
(a) spouse,
(b) son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them,
(c) parents,
(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, as had been ordinarily living in
the premises with such person as a member or members of his family up to the date of his death,
but does not include,-

7
any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such
decree or order for eviction is liable to be re-opened under the proviso of section 3 of the Delhi
Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (18 of 1976);
(B) any person to whom a license, as defined by section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5
of 1882), has been granted.”
The definition of the expression ‘tenant’ in the act is exhaustive. It is in three parts.
 The first part is the general part.
 The second part is inclusive in character.
 The third part excludes certain persons from the scope of the expression.
In order that the act may apply there must exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between
two persons in relation to any premises contemplated by the act. The general law is that a person
cannot grant a lease to himself and it is submitted that principle applies here. Whether any person
is a tenant or not for the purposes of the act is an important jurisdictional fact as it shall
determine whether the controller can exercise jurisdiction in relation to him or not.
The opening general part of the definition means that any person who is bound in law to pay
rent of any premises is a tenant under the act. The emphasis is on the liability or the
obligation to pay rent. It is irrelevant who makes the payment of rent. The mere payment of rent
cannot without more bring into existence the relationship of landlord and tenant4. There must be
some agreement or contract between the parties from which such relationship can arise.
Conversely where such relationship is established by contract the mere non-payment of rent
since the inception of tenancy does not negate the same.
It should be noted that mere payment of rent by any person does not mean that he is tenant. Thus
where the rent is paid out of partnership funds but the initial letting was to an individual, the
partnership firm does not become the tenant.5 In Om Prakash v. Mahinder Kumar Malhotra6
Hon’ble D.K. Kapur J. held that:
“the definition of tenant in section 2(l) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is that a tenant is a
person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent is to be paid for the premises. As
long as the landlord never agreed to accept rent from the joint family those other member of the

4
H.S. Rikhy v. NDMC, AIR 1962 SC 554
5
Inder Sain Gupta v. Sushil Kumar, 22 (1982) DLT 389
6
1971 RCR 552 Delhi

8
joint family cannot claim to be tenants. The landlord only agreed to accept rent from the tenant
and if the tenant was entitled to use the premises for the benefit of others that would not make
those other persons tenants either under the transfer of property act or under the Delhi Rent
Control Act.”

Tenancy is not created by payment of rent or by estoppel or by waiver:

It should be noted that in a tenancy, the payment of rent is an important factor, but mere payment
of rent does not create a tenancy. In the case of Satjit Singh v. Skipper Towers (P) Ltd.,7, it
was held that estoppel or waiver does not create a relationship, since tenancy is a contract there
has to be consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds) and unless it is shown that there was
meeting of the minds, it cannot be deduced that there was a landlord-tenant relationship. In the
above case it was categorically held that, by a unilateral action of the tenant of surrendering his
right of tenancy in favor of a third-party by delivering the possession of the tenanted premises to
the said third party, no new tenancy is created which may legally bind the landlord. By mere
acceptance of rent for the tenanted premises from the said third party, no new tenancy is created
which may legally bind the landlord. Similarly, by mere acceptance of rent for the tenanted
premises tendered by the tenant in the name of a third party, a new tenancy in favour of the third
party cannot be taken to have been created

Sub-tenant
Section 2(l)(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 expressly states that the expression tenant
includes sub-tenant.
For eg., A lets property to B who then further sub-lets that particular property to C. Here C is the
sub-tenant.

A-----lets property to--------B------sub-lets that property to-------C(sub-tenant)

7
79 (1999) DLT 521

9
In the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. P.S. Jain Co. Ltd.,8 a question was posed, that
is: whether, when tenancy of a building which is further sub-let and the sub-tenant is paying a
rent in excess of Rs. 3,500/-, then the Civil Court would have jurisdiction or the Rent Controller?
The Court held that, there is no distinction between the rent payable by the tenant or the sub-
tenant and in such a case, the rent control legislation would not be applicable, and the Civil Court
would have the jurisdiction.

Any person continuing in possession after the termination of his

tenancy or statutory tenant
Even a person continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy along with his legal
representatives is deemed to be a tenant, despite the fact that the contract or the relationship as
was so subsisting has been terminated; these individuals who continue to occupy the premises
despite the severance of the landlord-tenant relationship as was previously subsisting are called
as the ‘statutory tenants’.9

There are two legal concepts that emerge from this, that is, the concept of “tenant by holding
over” and the concept of “tenant at sufferance”.
In the case of R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh,10 the Supreme Court of India
held that, a tenant at sufferance is the one who comes into the possession of the land under a
lawful title, but who continues to hold the possession wrongfully even after the termination of
the term or the expiry of the lease by efflux of time. The tenant at sufferance is, therefore, the
one who wrongfully continues in the possession of the premises even after the extinction of the
lawful title. There is in fact little difference between tenant at sufferance and a trespasser. In
Mulla’s Transfer of Property Act, the position of tenancy at sufferance has been stated thus: “A
tenancy at sufferance is merely a fiction to avoid continuance in possession operating as a
trespass. It has been described as the least and lowest interest which can subsist in reality. It,

8
1995 (2) RCR 34
9
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Critical Appreciation of the 1958 Act, by Shivam Goel available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849727 (Last Modified October 10, 2016)
10
AIR 1996 SC 140

10
therefore, cannot be created by contract and arises only by implication of law when the person
who has been in possession under a lawful title continues in possession after that title has been
determined, without the consent of the person entitled (that is, the landlord). A tenancy at
sufferance does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant.”11. At page 769, it is stated,
regarding the right of a tenant by holding over thus: “The act of holding over, after the
expiration of the term does not necessarily create a tenancy of any kind. If the lessee remains in
possession after the determination of the term, the common law rule is that he is a tenant at
sufferance. The expression “holding over” is used in the sense of retaining the possession. A
distinction should be drawn between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of
the lease without the consent of the landlord, and a tenant doing so with the landlord’s consent.
The former is called tenancy by sufferance in the language of the English Law and the latter
class is called tenancy by holding over or tenancy at will…..”12

When the person continuing in possession after the termination of

his tenancy dies:
Section 2(iii) provides those people who would be included within the definition of tenant.

According to section 2(iii)

(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination
of his tenancy, subject to the order of succession and to this clause, such of the aforesaid
person’s-

(a) spouse,

(b) son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them,

(c) parents,

11
Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla; H R Khanna; P M Bakshi, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 633 (Lexis Nexis,
Bombay, 7th edn., 1985)
12
Ibid., p. 769

11
(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, as had been ordinarily living in
the premises with such person as a member or members of his family up to the date of his death,
but does not include,-

any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such
decree or order for eviction is liable to be re-opened under the proviso of section 3 of the Delhi
Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (18 of 1976);

Explanation1. - The order of succession in the event of the death of the person continuing in
possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows:-

(a) firstly, his surviving spouse;

(b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving spouse, or if the surviving
spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased person as a member of his family up to the date
of his death;

(c) thirdly, his parents, if there is no surviving spouse, son or daughter or any of them, did not
ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to the date of
his death; and

(d) fourthly, his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, if there is no
surviving spouse, son, daughter or parents of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse,
son, daughter or parents, or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of
the family of the deceased person up to the date of his death.

Explanation 1 lays down the order of succession when the person continuing in possession dies.

In Smt. Gian Devi Anand vs Jeeevan Kumar And Others13The appellant's husband was the
tenant in respect of a shop under the respondent-landlord since 1979. In 1970 the respondent-
landlord served a notice on the appellant's husband determining the tenancy. Thereafter, he filed
a petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the tenant from

13 1985 SCC (2) 683

12
the said shop on several grounds including the grounds of nonpayment of rent and sub-letting.
The Rent Controller dismissed the petition.

Against the order of the Rent Controller the respondent-landlord preferred an appeal before the
Rent Control Tribunal and the tenant filed cross-objections. During the pendency of the appeal,
the tenant died and the present appellant was substituted. The Rent Control Tribunal remanded
the case to the Rent Controller to decide the question of sub-letting afresh after affording an
opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal in the High
Court. The respondent-landlord filed cross-objection and further raised a contention that in view
of the death of the original tenant who continued to remain in possession of the shop as a
statutory tenant, the widow and the heirs of the deceased-tenant were not entitled to continue to
remain in occupation thereof. The High Court allowed the cross-objection filed by the
respondent-landlord and passed a decree for eviction against the appellant mainly on the ground
that the protection afforded to the statutory tenant by the Act was not available to the heirs and
the legal representatives.

In appeal to this Court the appellant while relying upon Damadi Lal and Ors. v. Parashram
and Ors.14, contended that notwithstanding the determination of the statutory tenancy of the
tenant in respect of any commercial premises, the position in law remains unchanged in so far
as the tenancy in respect of commercial premises is concerned by virtue of the provisions of the
Act. The respondent, however argued

(i) that the protection against the eviction after termination of tenancy afforded to a
tenant by the Act creates a personal right in favour of the tenant who continues to
remain in possession after termination of his tenancy without any estate or interest in
2 the premises and therefore on the death of such a tenant his heirs who had neither
any estate or interest in the tenanted premises and who do not have any protection
under the Act against eviction are liable to be evicted as a matter of course under the
ordinary law of the land; and

14
[1976] Supp. S.C.R. 645

13
 (ii) (ii) that the amendment to the definition of 'tenant' with retrospective effect
introduced by the Delhi Rent Control Amendment Act (Act 18 of 1976) to give
personal protection and personal right to continue in possession to the heirs of the
deceased statutory tenant in respect of residential premises only and not with regard
to the so called statutory tenant in respect of commercial premises indicated that the
heirs of so called statutory tenant, do not enjoy any protection under the Act.

It was held that:

(1)(i) The term "statutory tenant" is used in English Rent Act and though this term is not to be
found in the Indian Acts, in the judgments of the Supreme Court and also various High Courts in
India, this term has often been used to denote a tenant whose contractual tenancy has been
terminated but who has become entitled to continue to remain in possession by virtue of the
protection afforded to him by the statutes in question; namely, the various Rent Control Acts
prevailing in different States of India. It is also important to note that notwithstanding the
termination of the contractual tenancy by the Landlord, the tenant is afforded protection against
eviction and is permitted to continue to remain in possession even after the termination of the
contractual tenancy by the Act in question and invariably by all the Rent Acts in force in various
States so long as an order of decree for eviction against the tenant on any of the grounds
specified in such Acts on the basis of which an order or decree for eviction against the tenant
can be passed, is not passed.
(1)(ii) Though provisions of all the Rent Control Acts are not uniform, the common feature of all
the Rent Control Legislation is that a contractual tenant on the termination of the contractual
tenancy is by virtue of the provisions of the Rent Acts not liable to be evicted as a matter of
course under the ordinary law of the land and he is entitled to remain in possession even after
determination of the contractual tenancy and no order or decree for eviction will be passed
against a tenant unless any ground which entitles the landlord go get an order or decree for
possession specified in the Act is established.
(2)(i) The termination of the contractual tenancy in view of the definition of 'tenant' in the Act
does not bring about any change in the status and legal position of the tenant, unless there are
contrary provisions in the Act; and, the tenant notwithstanding the termination of tenancy does
enjoy an estate or interest in the tenanted premises. This interest or estate which the tenant under
the Act despite termination of the contractual tenancy continues to enjoy creates a heritable

14
interest in the absence of any provision to the contrary. The amendment of the definition of
'tenant' by Act 18 of 1976 introducing particularly section 2(i)(iii) does not in any way mitigate
against this view. The said sub-section (iii) with all the three Explanations thereto is not in any
way inconsistent with or contrary to sub-section (ii) of Section 2(1) which unequivocally states
that 'tenant' includes any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy. In
the absence of the provision contained in sub-section 2(i)(iii), the heritable interest of the heirs
of the statutory tenant would devolve on all the heirs of the so called statutory tenant' on his
death and the heirs of such tenant would in law step into his position.
Damadial & Ors. v. Parashram & Ors.15followed.
(3)(ii) Section 2(i)(iii) of the Act does not create any additional or special right in favour of
the heirs of the 'so called statutory tenant' on his death, but seeks to restrict the right of the heirs
of such tenant in respect of residential premises. As the status and rights of a contractual tenant
even after determination of his tenancy when the tenant is at times described as the statutory
tenant, are fully protected by the Act and the heirs of such tenants become entitled by virtue of
the provisions of the
Act to inherit the status and position of the statutory tenant on his death, the Legislature which
has created this right has thought it fit in the case of residential premises to limit the rights of the
heirs in the manner and to the extent provided in S. 2(1)(iii). However, the Legislature has not
thought it fit to put any such restrictions with regard to tenants in respect of commercial premises
in this Act. So long as the contractual tenancy of a tenant who carries on the business continues,
there can be no question of the heirs of the deceased tenant not only inheriting the tenancy but
also inheriting the business and they are entitled to run and enjoy the same.

Explanation II. - If the person, who acquires, by succession, the right to continue in possession
after the termination of the tenancy, was not financially dependent on the deceased person on
the date of his death, such successor shall acquire such right for a limited period of one year;
and on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor
to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy shall become extinguished.

15
[1976] Supp, S.C.R.
645

15
This explanation simply lays down that the person who acquires right to continue in possession
was not financially dependent on deceased on date of death then he shall acquire such right
only for a period of one year.

Explanation III.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, -

(a) where, by reason of Explanation II, the right of any successor to continue in possession after
the termination of the tenancy becomes extinguished, such extinguished shall not affect the right
of any other succession of the same category to continue in possession after the termination of
the tenancy; but if there is no other successor of the same category, the right to continue in
possession after the termination of the tenancy shall not, on such extinguishment, pass on to any
other successor, specified in any lower category or categories, as the case may be;

(b) the right of every successor, referred to in Explanation I, to continue in possession after the
termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor,
develop on any of his heirs];

16
 References
Books Referred:
 Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla; H R Khanna; P M Bakshi, The Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (Lexis Nexis, Bombay, 7th edn., 1985)

Statutes Referred:
 The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Websites Referred:
 www.cprindia.org
 www.commonfloor.com
 www.papers.ssrn.com
 www.casemine.com

17