A tenant's most basic obligation is to pay rent, and the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 turns that obligation into a tightly regulated statutory duty. The Act fixes when rent must be paid (section 26), gives the tenant a safety valve to deposit it with the Controller when the landlord refuses (sections 27-28), and makes persistent default the most common ground of eviction under section 14(1)(a). Crucially, the same Act that exposes a defaulter to eviction also hands him a statutory shield under sections 14(2) and 15: deposit the arrears as directed and the eviction petition collapses. This note maps the tenant's liability to pay rent end to end, from the fifteenth-day deadline to the once-only relief and the penal power to strike out a defence.
The statutory source of the duty to pay rent
Under a lease, the duty to pay rent is contractual, but the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 superimposes a statutory regime on every tenancy that falls within its scope. Once premises are governed by the Act, the contractual rent cannot exceed the standard rent fixed or fixable under sections 4 to 9, and the tenant's liability is to pay that lawful rent together with any lawful increases permitted by the Act. The Act does not abolish the contractual obligation; it channels it. Where the contract stipulates the time and mode of payment, that governs; where it is silent, the statute supplies the default rule. The whole edifice of rent recovery, deposit and eviction in Chapters III, IV and the eviction provisions of section 14 is built on this single liability. For the statutory framework as a whole, see the Delhi Rent Control Act hub and the introduction to the Act.
Section 26: the time within which rent must be paid
Section 26 fixes the deadline. Every tenant must pay rent within the time fixed by the contract; in the absence of any such contractual stipulation, rent for any month must be paid by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. This is the pivot on which the entire deposit and default machinery turns: every other timeline in the Act is measured from the section 26 date. A tenant who pays rent is also entitled, under section 26, to obtain a written receipt signed by the landlord or his authorised agent for the amount paid. The receipt is not a courtesy but a statutory right, because the tenant's proof of timely payment is what defends him against the later allegation of arrears that founds an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a).
Sections 27-28: depositing rent with the Controller
A landlord can defeat a tenant's good faith by simply refusing to accept rent, then alleging default. Sections 27 and 28 close that trap. Under section 27, where the landlord does not accept the rent tendered within the section 26 time, or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt, or where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person to whom rent is payable, the tenant may deposit the rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner. The application must describe the premises, the period, the landlord's particulars and the reason for deposit; the Controller forwards a copy to the landlord, who may withdraw the amount on satisfying the Controller of his entitlement. Section 28 supplies the consequence and the discipline: no deposit is valid unless made within twenty-one days of the section 26 time, and a deposit so made is deemed to constitute payment of rent to the landlord, as if the amount had been validly tendered on the due date. The deposit thus operates as a statutory tender, preserving the tenant from the charge of default even though the landlord never touched the money.
Misuse of the deposit machinery and penalties
The deposit route is a shield, not a sword, and the Act guards against abuse. Under section 27, if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's statements in the deposit application are materially false, he may levy a fine that may extend to an amount equal to two months' rent. Conversely, where a landlord without reasonable cause refuses to accept rent lawfully tendered, the Controller may direct that the rent for that period not be recoverable by the landlord and may award the tenant his costs. The deposit machinery therefore disciplines both parties: it protects an honest tenant whose landlord stonewalls, while penalising a tenant who fabricates a doubt merely to delay payment. A tenant who genuinely cannot trace his landlord, or who faces rival claimants after a sale or succession, should deposit under section 27 rather than withhold rent, because withholding is default and depositing is payment.
Section 14(1)(a): eviction for non-payment of rent
Default in payment of rent is the single most litigated ground of eviction. The first proviso to section 14(1) permits the Controller to order recovery of possession where the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Three elements must coexist: there must be arrears of rent legally recoverable (not, for instance, rent above the standard rent), a valid notice of demand must be served, and the two-month period must expire without full payment or tender. Because the rent must be "legally recoverable", a tenant can resist eviction by showing that the sum demanded exceeds the lawful rent. This ground sits alongside the other grounds for recovery of possession, but it is unique because the Act simultaneously provides a complete answer to it.
Section 15: deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings
Section 15 is the operative shield. In every proceeding for recovery of possession on the ground of non-payment, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order under section 15(1) directing the tenant to pay or deposit, within one month of the order, the arrears calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period in default, and thereafter to continue paying or depositing the monthly rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. Where there is a dispute as to the rate of rent, section 15(3) empowers the Controller to fix an interim rate having regard to the provisions of the Act and to direct payment or deposit accordingly. The order under section 15(1) is therefore not a finding of default but a protective mechanism: it tells the tenant exactly what to pay to keep the eviction at bay while the petition is heard.
Section 14(2): the protective benefit and its once-only limit
Section 14(2) converts compliance with section 15 into an absolute bar on eviction for default. No order for recovery of possession on the ground in clause (a) shall be made if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15. A tenant who obeys the section 15 order in full thus defeats the petition outright, however large the original arrears. But the benefit is rationed by the proviso: no tenant is entitled to the protection of section 14(2) if, having obtained that benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. The proviso punishes the habitual defaulter. In Mohan Lal v. Tirath Ram Chopra, the Delhi High Court applied this proviso to hold that a tenant who had already enjoyed the section 14(2) benefit and then defaulted again for three consecutive months could no longer invoke section 15(1) to escape eviction. The lesson for tenants is stark: the statutory umbrella opens only once per premises.
Section 15(7): striking out the defence for non-deposit
What happens if the tenant ignores the section 15 order? Section 15(7) provides that if a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by section 15, the Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application. This is a drastic, penal power, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly confined it. In Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 1986, the Court held that striking out the defence under section 15(7) is not automatic or obligatory; the power is discretionary and must be reserved for cases of wilful or deliberate default in the payment of future rent, not invoked mechanically on a mere failure to pay. The discretion was sharpened in Miss Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, (1980) 3 SCC 610, where Krishna Iyer J. described section 15(7) as a provision with a "built-in self-restraint", to be used sparingly in exceptional circumstances of volitional default and never converted from "the last resort" into "the first resort". The same restraint informs the Court's reasoning in Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, (1980) 2 SCC 151, on the discretion to extend time for deposit under cognate rent legislation.
Quantifying the liability: rate of rent and statutory increases
The amount a tenant is liable to deposit is the lawful rent, not necessarily the contractual figure. Section 15(1) speaks of "the rate at which rent was last paid", which the Controller uses as the working measure unless the rate is genuinely disputed, in which case section 15(3) supplies an interim figure. Over time the lawful liability may rise through the lawful increases the Act permits, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that these survive a pending eviction. In M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), AIR 2008 SC 673, the Court held that a landlord may increase the agreed rent as permitted by the Act even while an eviction proceeding and a section 15 deposit order are pending, provided the prescribed statutory notice of increase is served on the tenant. The tenant's liability to deposit therefore tracks the lawful rent as it lawfully changes, and a tenant who deposits the old figure after a valid notice of increase risks falling short of the section 15 direction.
When the statutory liability does not apply
Not every tenancy in Delhi is governed by this regime. The protective and regulatory provisions, including the controlled liability to pay rent and the section 15 shield, apply only to premises within the Act's scope. High-value tenancies are carved out: premises whose rent exceeds the specified ceiling are exempt from the Act, so the tenant's liability there is purely contractual and recovery proceeds under the ordinary civil law rather than through the Controller. Likewise, the technical meaning of "tenant", "rent" and "premises" in the definitions determines who can claim the statutory protections at all. A practitioner must therefore first confirm that the premises fall within the Act before invoking sections 26 to 28 or the section 15 deposit machinery; outside the Act, none of this applies.
Practical compliance: a tenant's checklist
Read together, the provisions yield a clear discipline for any tenant who wishes to keep possession. First, pay rent by the contractual date, failing which by the fifteenth of the next month under section 26, and always demand and keep the receipt. Second, if the landlord refuses rent or there is genuine doubt about who to pay, deposit with the Controller under section 27 within twenty-one days so that section 28 deems it paid. Third, on receiving a notice of demand for arrears, pay or tender the whole legally recoverable arrears within two months to defeat section 14(1)(a) at the threshold. Fourth, if a petition is filed, comply punctiliously with the section 15 order, depositing arrears within one month and future rent month by month, to secure the section 14(2) bar and avoid the section 15(7) strike-out. Finally, remember that the section 14(2) benefit is available only once per premises, so a second three-month default forfeits the shield permanently. Disciplined payment, not litigation, is the tenant's surest protection.
Frequently asked questions
By what date must a tenant pay rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act?
Section 26 requires payment within the time fixed by the contract; where the contract is silent, rent for any month must be paid by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is due. The tenant is also entitled to a signed written receipt.
What can a tenant do if the landlord refuses to accept rent?
The tenant should deposit the rent with the Rent Controller under section 27 within twenty-one days of the section 26 due date. Under section 28 such a deposit is deemed to be payment of rent to the landlord, protecting the tenant from any allegation of default.
Can a tenant be evicted merely for being in arrears of rent?
Not automatically. Under section 14(1)(a) eviction requires arrears that are legally recoverable, a valid notice of demand, and failure to pay or tender within two months. Even then, the tenant can defeat the petition by complying with the section 15 deposit order, which section 14(2) makes an absolute bar to eviction on that ground.
What is the order under section 15 and why does it matter?
In a non-payment eviction case the Controller directs the tenant under section 15(1) to deposit the arrears within one month at the rate last paid and to continue paying future rent month by month. Full compliance triggers the protective bar in section 14(2); non-compliance exposes the tenant to having the defence struck out under section 15(7).
Is the protection against eviction for non-payment available more than once?
No. The proviso to section 14(2) makes the benefit available only once per premises. If a tenant who has already obtained the benefit again defaults for three consecutive months, he forfeits the protection, as the Delhi High Court applied in Mohan Lal v. Tirath Ram Chopra.
Must the Controller always strike out the defence if the tenant fails to deposit?
No. In Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 1986, and Miss Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, (1980) 3 SCC 610, the Supreme Court held that section 15(7) is discretionary and penal, to be used sparingly only where the default is wilful or deliberate, not mechanically on every failure to pay.