Eviction of Tenant

The legal terms for the eviction of tenants have been provided under the different state laws under the rent control Acts and majorly provide for the following common grounds of eviction as follows :–

1. Where there is a willful non-payment of the agreed rent amount as per the agreement for a duration exceeding 15 days after the rent became due.
2. Sub-letting or parting with the possession of the house without the written consent of the owner;
3. Using premises for purposes other than what was agreed for and mentioned in the rental agreement and the Rent Authority is satisfied that the misuse of the premises.
4. Commission of any act that results in damages or loss of utility or value of the property;
5. Usage of the premises by tenant for any purpose or reason considered to be illegal or immoral under the laws;
6. Creation of nuisance in the neighbourhood whereby the neighbours have confirmed in writing that the further continuation of the tenant is objectionable to them;
7. Where there has been an occupation of other premises for more than four months in a different state or region by the tenant;
8. Where neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months or, the tenant alone has not been residing therein, without a reasonable cause for a period of two years.
9. In case the premises become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and are required by the landlord for carrying out repairs or re- construction 
10. Where the premises or any part thereof are required by the landlord for the purpose of immediate demolition or construction work ordered by the Government or any local authority
11. Where the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and the tenant has ceased to be in such service or employment
12. Where the tenant has failed to prove that he is a bona fide tenant;
13. Where the tenant after having agreed with the landlord in writing the date to vacate the premises does not do so on or after the date so agreed or informed.
14. Where the landlord needs the premises for his own use or for the occupation of his family members having a bona fide reason.
15. In case where the tenant denies the title of landlord as owner of the premises and fails to prove it.

Following are a few recent landmark Judgments by the Supreme Court of India helping to strengthen the cause of the landlords under the laws governing the tenancy which largely tend cater and favour the tenants -

• In the recent Supreme Court Judgment in the case of  N. MOTILAL & ORS. VS. FAISAL BIN ALI & ANR. (CIVIL APPEAL NO.710 OF 2020) the issue whether fair rent provisions are applicable in cases where tenancy is based of contractual rent agreements i.e. during the currency of agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant whether landlord is precluded from making an application for determination of fair rent. The Appellants being the tenants contended that Section 4 of the Telangana Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rent, 1960 has no application on the contractual tenancy. The Supreme Court relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in M/s. Raval & Co.’s case as well as seven-Judge Bench judgment in V. Dhanapal Chettiar’s which categorically had laid down that application for determination of fair rent can be made both by the landlord and tenant which can be made even during currency of contractual tenancy, dismissed the appeal on no merit basis.

• In another landmark judgment of the Apex court in the case of HUKUM CHANDRA VS. NEMI CHAND JAIN; an appeal was filed by Hukum Chandra, the tenant, against his landlord, Nemi Chand Jain, who wanted the rented property being a suit shop, for one of his sons, Rajendra Kumar. The landlord filed a suit seeking eviction of the tenant from the shop on the ground of bona fide requirement to settle his son under Section 12 (1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The bench disagreed with the civil court and discovered that there is nothing to show that land owner’s son was engaged in the business of utensils at the time of filing the eviction petition.

The Supreme Court stated that a tenant cannot refuse to evacuate a rented building asserting that his or her landlord or family has another job or business and is in no bona fide need of the property.
 

• In the recent case of A. MAHALKSHMI v. BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR & ANR. , the appellant landlady filed an eviction suit on the ground of sub­letting as well as on the  ground  of  arrears of rent  against the respondents under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the eviction decree on the ground of sub­letting however the revision application before the High Court was preferred which allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Rent Control Authority and stated that “Sub­letting, assigning or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole or   any   part   of   the   tenancy   premises, without   obtaining   the consent in writing of the landlord, is not permitted and if done, the same provides a ground for eviction of the tenant by the landlord”.