Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The control of rents and evictions, which were initiated in the wake of partition and population explosion in Delhi, served a salutary purpose in the then prevailing situation. Over the years the restrictions and limitations imposed and continued by various rent control legislations, namely, the New Delhi House Rent Control Order, 1939; the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941; the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance, 1944; the Ajmer-Mewar Control of Rent and Eviction Order, 1946; the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act 19 of 1947; and Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act 38 of 1952, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, have curtailed the growth of housing in general and rental housing in particular. Even amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by Act No. 57 of 1988 did not provide any incentive for construction of buildings for rental housing and failed to provide solutions to the problems. It was in this background that the Delhi Rent Control Bill, 1994 was tabled in the Parliament. The Bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and it was enacted on August 23, 1995 on receipt of the assent of the President of India, but did not come into force as the Central Government did not issue a notification as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 thereof. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill read as follows:
"The relations between landlords and tenants in the national Capital Territory of Delhi are presently governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This Act came into force on the 9th February, 1959. It was amended thereafter in 1960, 1963, 1976, 1984 and 1988. The amendments made in 1988 were based on the recommendations of the Economic Administration Reforms Commission and the National Commission on Urbanisation. Although they were quite extensive in nature, it was felt that they did not go far enough in the matter of removal of disincentives to the growth of rental housing and left many questions unanswered and problems unaddressed. Numerous representations for further amendments to the Act were received from groups of tenants and landlords and others.

13. thus, it appears that the Parliament was conscious of the shortcomings in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was also realised that the amendments made in 1988 did not boost the growth of rental housing and left many question and problems unaddressed including the problems stemming from pegging the rents at low levels. From a rational and humane angle a change was required.

14. When Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were enacted there may have been a justification, but with the passage of time the provisions have fallen foul of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution due to changed circumstances. Even Section 6A has not been able to cure the defects.

22. The Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., , stressed the need for rationalising the rent legislation. In this regard the Supreme Court observed as follows:

36. It is common knowledge that there is acute shortage of housing, various factors have led to this problem. The laws relating to letting and of landlord and tenant in different States have from different States' angles tried to grapple the problem. Yet in view of the magnitude of the problem, the problem has become insoluble and the litigations abound the people suffer.