Tenants can be evicted only by following procedure laid down in applicable rent control law

The Supreme Court has observed that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in such laws.

The Supreme Court delivered the above-reasoning in the matter of Dr. RS Grewal & Ors vs. Chander Prakash Soni & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11086/2018), delivered on 16.04.2019.

CHALLENGES

The Appellant’s mother let out a property to Respondent’s family for rent. The life estate granted to Appellant’s mother had enabled her to create a tenancy and receive the rent from the tenants on the property. After her death, the other heirs became the owners of the property. They filed a suit for possession against the tenant on the basis that the tenant was a trespasser after the death of the Appellant’s mother. The trial court decreed the Suit. The High Court, in second appeal, dismissed the suit.

HELD

The Supreme Court observed that in whose favor a tenancy was created had acquired a status of a statutory tenant [under the definition of the expression ‘tenant’ in Section 2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949] and that status does not stand obviated by the death. The Court explained remedy available to the appellants to remove the first respondent from the property is by pursuing eviction proceedings on one or more of the grounds available in the enactment. Section 13 lays down the procedure for eviction of tenants. Only upon the satisfaction of the Controller that sufficient grounds exist for eviction of the tenant can an order be passed directing the tenant to vacate the premises.

The bench further observed that the statutory protection granted for the benefit of the tenants under specific tenancy laws is to be viewed from a standpoint of protecting the interests of a particular class. Restrictions on recovery of possession of the premises let out to the tenants have been imposed for the benefit of the tenants as a matter of legislative policy.

Concluding the reasoning the Court adds that in the present case the idea to create the tenancy was an act of the person enjoying a life interest.  The creation of a tenancy was the exercise of an authority of that individual, in order to generate income from the property for her own sustenance. The protection which is conferred upon the tenant against eviction, except on specified grounds, arises as a consequence of statutory prescription under rent control legislation. The reason why the tenant is entitled to occupy the premises beyond the life time of the landlord who created the tenancy is simply as a result of a statutory enactment, in this case, the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949. It is the intervention of a legislative mandate which ensures to the benefit of the tenant. Once this has taken place, it was not open to the civil court to entertain a suit for possession founded on the hypothesis that the tenant is a trespasser.