Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 · Chapter III: Control of Eviction of Tenants
Section 14: Protection of tenant against eviction
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:—
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882);
(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
(c) that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let—
(i) if the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; or
(ii) if the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent;
(d) that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof;
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;
(f) that the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated;
(g) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated;
(h) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, ***, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;
[(hh) that the tenant has, after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, built a residence and ten years have elapsed thereafter;]
(i) that 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 that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment;
(j) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises;
(k) that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate;
(l) that the landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme and that such building work cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.
(2) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15;
Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months.
(3) No order for the recovery of possession in any proceeding under sub-section (1) shall be binding on any sub-tenant referred to in section 17 who has given notice of his sub-tenancy to the landlord under the provisions of that section, unless the sub-tenant is made a party to the proceeding and the order for eviction is made binding on him.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), any premises which have been let for being used for the purposes of business or profession shall be deemed to have been sub-let by the tenant, if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord has, after the 16th day of August, 1958, allowed any person to occupy the whole or any part of the premises ostensibly on the ground that such person is a partner of the tenant in the business or profession but really for the purpose of sub-letting such premises to that person.
(5) No application for the recovery of possession of any premises shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground specified in clause (c) of the proviso thereto, unless the landlord has given to the tenant a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him to stop the misuse of the premises and the tenant has refused or failed to comply with such requirement within one month of the date of service of the notice; and no order for eviction against the tenant shall be made in such a case, unless the Controller is satisfied that the misuse of the premises is of such a nature that it is a public nuisance or that it causes damage to the premises or is otherwise detrimental to the interest of the landlord.
(6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years have elapsed from the date of the acquisition.
(7) Where an order for the recovery of possession of any premises is made on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order.
(8) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1), unless the Controller is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or that such radical alteration is in the public interest, and that the plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary fund for the purpose are available with the landlord.
(9) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the Controller is of opinion that there is any bona fide dispute as to whether the tenant has ceased to be in the service or employment of the landlord.
(10) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, carries out repairs to the damage caused to the satisfaction of the Controller or pays to the landlord such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.
(11) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 14
- Ajay Bhatia v. Jitender
- Munni Devi v. M/S Olive Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. & Ors
- Smt Nirmaladevi (D) Thru Her Lr Smt Ilashree Nath Gupta v. Smt Kamla Gupta
- Noor Ahamd & Anr v. Mohd Sadiq
- Rajiya Begum v. Rekha & Anr
- Smt. Roshni & Anr v. Smt. Dayawanti & Ors
- Smt. Roshni & Anr v. Smt. Dayawati & Ors
- Satya Pal Pathak Through Gpa v. Vijay Kumar Kaushik
- Sh. Om Prakash Gupta v. Smt. Vijay Mehra & Ors
- M/S Molu Ram Radha Kishan v. Vijay Mehra & Ors
- Garg Trading Co v. Vijay Mehra & Ors
- Sh. Bhajan Lal v. Sh. Rajender Prasad Jain
- Ashok Kumar Jha v. Vijay Kumar
- Suresh Kumar v. Sharda Ahuja
- Sandeep Puri v. Sharda Ahuja
- Pradeep Kumar Malik v. Chander Dhingra
- Shakuntala Devi v. Mohan Das
- Dinesh Kumar v. Krishan Lal Khurana & Ors
- Munni Devi & Anr v. Madan Lal & Ors
- Smt Rashida Bano v. Mst Yasmeen Begum
-
IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 versus
Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an unreasonable…
- Mohd Arshad and Ors v. Syed Mohd Yahaya Nizami
- Smt. Nirmala Devi (D) Through Her Lr Smt. Ilashree Nath Gupta v. Smt Kamla Gupta
- Sunil Kumar Jain v. Dinesh Bhatia
- Amarjit Singh Kohli v. Ashok Kumar Sapra
- Anil Kalra & Anr v. Sheikh Mohd Iqbal
- Vir Pal v. Vijay Kumar Farshwal and Anr
- Pramod Bhushan v. Chaman Singh
- Pushpa Khanna & Anr v. Sanjay Narang & Ors
- Harjit Singh Sahni v. Sidhant Gupta
- Rajni Gupta v. Sanjay Gupta & Anr
- Yatti Dawar and Ors v. Ashok Kr. Gupta
- Shyam Sunder Batra & Anr v. Girish Kakar & Anr
- Nirmala Kumari & Ors v. Girish Kakkar & Anr
- Anand Kumar Saluja v. Girish Kakar & Anr
- Shehnaz Begum & Ors v. Karamvir Saini & Anr
- Jatav Sudhar Samiti & Anr v. Sushma Mittal
- Raj Kuma Verma & Ors v. Late Nanak Chand Thr Lrs
- Ajay Chawla v. Chander Bhan Makker & Anr
- Saroj Rani v. Lalit Kumar & Brothers
- Sunil Gulati v. Naseem Ahmed & Anr
- Sumit Khurana & Anr v. Mohd Ibrahim
- Dheeraj Jain & Ors v. Savitri Devi & Ors
- Balasaraswathy v. Kvsn Raju
- Sh. Anil Wadhwa & Anr v. Sh. M.M.L. Kapur
- Atul Sethi v. State
- Amrit Lal Wadhera & Anr v. Saroj Suneja
- Vijay Singh v. Sher Singh
- Ms Indraprastha Ice and Cold Storage Pvt Ltd v. Ms Cardiff Associates Pvt Ltd
- Shri Deepak Aggarwal v. Shri A.R. Singh (Since Deceased, Now Through Lrs)
- Praveen & Anr v. Mulak Raj & Ors
- Manmohan Singh v. Arjun Uppal & Anr
- Vinay Kumar Verma & Anr v. Harjit Singh Shah
- Reliable Tyre Market v. Arjun Uppal & Anr
- Anil Kumar Jha v. Shankar Lal (Sd) Through Lrs
- Rajni Bahl(Since Deceased) Thr Lrs v. Arun Kumar Nayyar
- Swaranjit Singh & Anr v. Shrimati Saroj Kapoor
- Tarun Kumar v. Parmanand Garg
- Tilak Raj Bhasin & Anr v. Dalip Kumar Ahuja
- Rajiv Mehra & Anr v. Ravi Bhushan
- Kali Charan Saini v. Seema Devi Khandelwal
- United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Gobind Parshad Jagdish Prashad & Ors
- Vijay Kumar Farshwal v. Kishan Lal
- Vijay Kumar Farshwal v. Raj Kumar
- Amrit Mohini & Anr v. Brij Mohan Gupta & Ors
- Amrit Mohini & Anr v. Sunita Struck & Ors
- Amrit Mohini & Anr v. Sunita Struck & Ors
- Sh. Vinay Kumar Soni v. Sh. Vijay Kumar
- Santosh Bhutani & Anr v. Savitri Devi Through Lrs
- Ratan Kumar and Anr v. Smt Santosh Jalutharia and Ors
- Arun Sood v. Hardit Kaur & Ors
- Rajeev Jain v. Devki Nandan Suyal @ Babloo & Anr
- Subhash Chandra Raswant v. Alokesh Barua
- H.S. Bajaj & Anr v. Satish Chopra
- Sunil Charla v. Madan Lal & Ors
- Pawan & Ors v. Mange Ram Gupta & Ors
- Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (Deceased) Through His Lrs Sh. Akshay Gupta v. Smt. Nisha Sharma & Ors
- Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (Deceased) Through Lrs v. Smt. Nisha Sharma
- Vimaljeet Kaur @ Gaindo v. Shine Jain
- Matloob Ahmad v. Kamal Kishore
- Bhaskar Refractories and Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd v. Ishwar Industries Ltd
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Shrishti Properties Pvt Ltd
- Babu Ram v. Budh Singh
- Wheel Finance India (P) Ltd v. S C Khaneja & Son (Huf)
- Khanna & Annadhanam v. S C Khaneja & Son (Huf)
- B K Shroff & Co v. S C Khaneja & Sons (Huf)
- Kamal Rana v. Anju Singh
- Rajbir Pal & Anr v. Kanwar Partap Singh
- Pradeep Malik v. Chander Dhingra
- M/S Ram Swaroop Radhey Shyam Through Its Proprietor v. Sh. Ajay Shukla
- Jan Alam (Deceased) Thr Lrs v. Rekha and Ors
- M/S the Commerical Electric Works & Ors v. Sharda Gupta
- Sh. Kanwal Kishore Nagpal & Ors v. Sh. Brahm Dev Sharma
- Dhanto & Ors v. Ramesh & Ors
- Seema Rao and Anr v. Mrs. Rekha Maini and Ors
- Mohd Naseem v. Moizuddn and Anr
- Shri Quazi Mohammed Ahmed v. Miohammed Sultan
- Anil Kumar Jain & Ors v. Shanta Beri
- Atul Gupta v. Bharat Bhushan & Ors
- Saraswathi Kumar v. Dr.Rakesh Kalra