• Delhi Rent Control Act: Maintainability of Section 19(2) of DRCA

Dear Experts,

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,
Bhagwan Dass.
Asked 2 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.
H. S. Thukral
Advocate, New Delhi
498 Answers
123 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Yes, section 19(2) shall be applicable.  To challenge it, you have to prove your occupation after vacation.
Fateh Chand Sharma
Advocate, Noida
86 Answers
1 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
19.2 is maintainable,you will have to defend it
Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations
3.5 on 5.0
Section 19(2) is indubitably applicable as the undertaking was furnished by the tenant during the SLP before the same was disposed of.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17462 Answers
426 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
21761 Answers
1132 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
12650 Answers
120 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
17462 Answers
426 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
11336 Answers
207 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3350 Answers
123 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2635 Answers
38 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
824 Answers
36 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1849 Answers
18 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1933 Answers
61 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1283 Answers
82 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0