Delhi Rent Control Act: Maintainability of Section 19(2) of DRCA
Could you please let me know my prospects in this case. I am the landlord/respondent here. I wanted to discuss with you the maintainability of Section 19(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act which allows provision for re-entry of the tenant if the landlord, after getting the premises vacated, either does not occupy it in 2 months or re-lets or re-sells it in 3 years w/o obtaining permission of the RC.
My case summary is as given below:
1. Eviction Petition filed by the landlord u/s 14 (1) (e) for bonafide requirement.
2. Leave to Defend gets dismissed in summary procedure of DRC Act Section 25 (B).
3. Tenant approaches High Court by way of revision. Revision Petition gets dismissed.
4. Tenant approaches the Supreme Court by way of an SLP Civil. SLP is not entertained. However, the SC grants 1 year time to the tenant upon furnishing usual undertaking.
5. Tenant gives an undertaking and as per the undertaking, the tenant vacates the premises after exactly 1 year.
6. Landlord withdraws the execution petition to the eviction decree.
7. Tenant applies for re-entry into the premises u/s 19 (2) of DRC Act alleging non-occupation of the premises by the landlord (which is also not true).
Now, my question is that under such a case, whether the landlord is considered to have recovered the possession of the premises in pursuance of eviction decree obtained under Section 14 (1) (e) or in pursuance of the undertaking given by the tenant in SC? And whether the Section 19 (2) of DRC Act is maintainable?
Also, if you can give me any supporting judgment of any court for a similar situation.
Awaiting your response. Thanks alot for your expert opinion in advance.
Thanks & Regards,
Asked 3 years ago in Civil Law from New Delhi, Delhi
Since the undertaking given by the tenant was during the hearing of SLP, arising out of eviction proceedings under section 14(1)e , section 19(2) shall be applicable.
Advocate, New Delhi
Yes, section 19(2) shall be applicable. To challenge it, you have to prove your occupation after vacation.
19.2 is maintainable,you will have to defend it
Advocate, New Delhi
Section 19 (2) says that the possession should be recovered in pursuance of the eviction decree under sec 14(1)(e). Whereas, in this case, there was no execution of the eviction decree but the tenant voluntarily surrendered the possession after one year based on his own undertaking in SC. And the execution petition was withdrawn thereafter. There was no execution of DRC Act on the day the possession was surrendered. This is similar to the Vidya Dhari Bhagat case law by SC. Do you think thus sec 19(2) is not valid ?
Asked 3 years ago
Section 19(2) is indubitably applicable as the undertaking was furnished by the tenant during the SLP before the same was disposed of.