Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D. 221

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART II—Section 2

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 62] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1968/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1890

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed

as a separate compilation.

RAJYA SABHA

The following report of the Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament on the Bill further to amend the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was presented to the Rajya Sabha on the 6th December, 1968.

COMPOSITION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

MEMBERS

RAJYA SABHA

1. Shri Lokanath Misra—Chairman

2. Shri P. C. Mitra

3. Shri Jagat Narain

4. Shri Bhawani Prasad Tiwari

5. Kumari Shanta Vasisht

(1559)

6. Shri M. P. Bhargava

*7. Shri Sitaram Jaipuria

*8. Dr. Bhai Mahavir

*9. Shri Sherkhan

*10. Shri T. Chcngalvaroyan

LOK SABHA

11. Shri Bashweshwar Nath Bhargava

12. Shri Maharaj Singh Bharti

13. Chowdhry Brahm Perkash

14. Shri Krishna Kumar Chatterji

15. Shri Benoy Krishna Daschowdhury

16. Shri Hardayal Devgun

17. Shri C. T. Dhandapani

18. Shri Hari Krishna

19. Sardar Iqbal Singh

20. Shri Lakhan Lad Kapoor

21. Shri Bhanudas Ramchandra Kavade

22. Shri Latafat Ali Khan

23. Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani

24. Shri Bakar Ali Mirza

25. Dr. Sushila Nayar

26. Shri Jaganath Rao

27. Shri P. G. Sen

28. Shri Satya Narain Singh

29. Shri S. Xavier

30. Shri Diwan Chand Sharma.

•Appointed on the iofh M">V, 1968, respectively vice Shri Vimnl Kumar M- Chordia, Shri D. p. Kaimoikm fhii f-i-n'o-h tu fh bvd Shri G D. Tapasc, who retired frorn the mtjnbers hip of the Rajyu S'abha on ijic i nd April, 1968.

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

1. the Chairman of the Joint Committee to which the Bill* further to amend the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was referred, having been authorised to submit the Report on their behalf, present this their Re- port, witn the Bill as amended by the Committee, annexed thereto.

2. The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 8th May, 1964. The motion for consideration of the Bill was moved in the House by Shri M. P. Bhargava, M.P. on the 26th November, 1965. At the same sitting an amendment to the motion that the Bill be circu- lated for eliteiting opinion thereon by the 31st March, 1966, was moved by the then Member, Thakur Bhanu Pratap Singh. This date was extended, on an amendment, upto the 31st August, 1966, and the motion for circulation of the Bill wasi adopted by the House on the 4th March, 1966. The motion for reference of the Bill to a Joint Committee of the Houses was moved on the 15th December, 1967 by Shri M. P. Bhargava and was adopted on the same day (Appen- dix I).

3. The Lok Sabha discussed and concurred in the motion on the 29th March, 1968 (Appendix II). As the Rajya Sabha was not then in session, the message from the Lok Sabha was circulated to the members of the Rajya Sabha on the 2nd April, 1968.

4. The Report of the Committee was to be presented by the 30th September, 1968. The Committee were, however, granted an exten- sion of time upto the last day of the Sixty-sixth (November-Decem- ber 1968) Session.

5. The Committee held thirteen sittings in all.

6. At their first sitting held on the 10th May, 1968, the Committee decided to issue a Press Communique inviting memoranda from associations and individuals interested in the subject-matter of the Bill and to hear evidence from them. The Committee also authori- sed their Chairman to decide, after examining the memoranda sub- mitted by the associations and individuals, as to who should be called to give oral evidence before the Committee.

7. Ninety-two memoranda/representations on the Bill were receiv- ved by the Committee from various associations/individuals (Appen- dix III).

8. The Committee heard evidence tendered by twenty-three wit- nesses (Appendix IV).

•Published in Part II, Hrction 2 of the Gazette of India Extraordinary, dated the 8th May, 1964.

9. The Committee have decided that the evidence tendered be- fore them should be printed and laid on the Table in both the Hous- es.

10. The Committee considered and adopted the Report on the 29th November, 1968.

11. During the course of the evidence tendered before the Com- mittee, various defects and lacunae in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, were brought to the notice of the Committee. The Committee could not make any recommendations in respect thereof as these were outside the purview of the present bill. A decade has passed since the enactment of the Act and the situation as it existed then has also undergone considerable change. The Committee, therefore, feel that the Act as a whole should be examined afresh by Government with a view to bringing forward a comprehensive legislation on the subject.

12. The principal changes suggested by the Committee in the Bill and reasons therefor are set out below: —

Clause 2

Paragraph (i):

The Committee feel that the period of four months during which a non-residential premises may not be utilized for the purpose for which it was¹ let out is short and should be extended to six months in the interest of the tenant. The Committee have accordingly made necessary amendment in para (dd). Incidentally, such an amend- ment would be in line with the provisions relating to non-utilization of a premises let for residential purposes contained in section 14(1) (d) of the principal Act.

Paragraph i}i) [sub-para (h)~\:

Clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, provides that if a tenant has, whether before or after the commence- ment of the said Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence, he is liable to be evicted. This ground of eviction has been extended by the Bill to cover any member of the tenant's family dependent on him or residing with him. The Committee feel

that such extension should not have retrospective effect. The Com- mittee have therefore amended sub-paragraph (h) so that if any member of a tenant's family builds, acquires vacant possession of, or is allotted, a residence after the enactment of the present Bill, he could be evicted. The Committee have, however, taken care to see that this provision will apply only when any member of the family of the tenant not only is dependent on him but also resides with him.

[Sub-para, (hh) (original)]:

The Committee are of the opinion that in the principal Act there are enough provisions under which a landlord can evict the tenant and get back his premises when he requires it for his hona fide use and as such there is no necessity o£ making any provision for the eviction of a tenant on the ground that "he has been in continuous occupation of any residential premises, of which the rent is rupees one hundred or more per month, for a period exceeding twenty-one years". Such a provision, in the opinion of the Committee, would cause hardship and harassment to the tenants. The Committee have, therefore, omitted sub-paragraph (hh) together with the explana- tion thereto.

Paragraph (Hi) —

[Sub-para, (jj)}:

The Committee are of the view that constructions of a minor nature carried out by a tenant should not be a ground for eviction. The Committee therefore feel that permanent and substantial struc- ture erected on the premises by the tenant unauhorisedly may alone be ground for eviction. The sub-paragraph has been suitably modi- fied.

[Sub-para, (jjj)]:

The Committee are of the opinion that before a tenant is evicted on the ground of using the premises or allowing it to be used for im- moral or illegal purposes, there must be a prior conviction of the tenant by a court of law for such immoral or illegal act. The Com- mittee have accordingly modified sub-paragraph (jjj).

Clause 3

The Committee are of the opinion that the question whether a residential building could be converted into a non-residential one, should be decided by the Central Government only and not by the

Controller. The Committee have, therefore, substituted the words "Central Government" for the word "Controller".

Clause 4

The clause empowered the Central Government or the- Chief Commissioner of Delhi (now Lt. Governor) to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Committee feel that this power of exemption should vest in the Central Government alone and in no other authority. The Committee also feel that before granting exemption the Central Government should record in writing, reasons for such exemption and should also publish the order of exemption in the Official Gazette for general information. The Committee have amended the clause accordingly.

13. The other changes made by the Committee in the Bill are of a formal or verbal nature.

14. The Committee recommend that the Bill, as amended, be passed.

NEW DELHI;

November 29, 1968.

1 CJiairman of the Joint Committee.

II

The Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Bill, 1964, now under con- sideration, soems to be a controversial one. The Act as it is, with all its latest amendments, is unable to satisfy the requirements of both landlords and tenants. It is clear from evidences tendered be- fore the Committee that both sides i.e. landlords and tenants have their genuine grievances. But the present amendments will be in no better position to satiate grievances of any sections of landlords and tenant; on the other hand the present amendments will only lend a sharpened weapon in the hands of landlords to vacate premises occupied by tenants on certain flimsy grounds or others as incorpo- rated in the amending Bill. One would clearly find that the amend- ing Bill, if enacted would be a colourable piece of legislation, as it

steps into social injustice in the garb of doing justice to the land- lords. Hence I oppose the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Bill, 1964.

Nevertheless to remove grievances of both sections i.e. landlords and tenants, and also to do justice to them, I suggest that there should be one "Delhi Premises Tenancy Act", a more comprehensive one, taking both Delhi Rent Control Act and Slum Clearance Act into one, incorporating justiceable demands of all groups or sections.

B. K. DASCHOWDHUHY.

NEW DELHI; November 29, 1968.