AI generated imageNEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a tenant can be evicted under the Delhi Rent Control Act if its tenancy rights pass to another entity through a merger without the landlord's written consent, ordering the eviction of a bank that continued to occupy its rented premises in Connaught Place, New Delhi, after being absorbed into another bank decades ago.What was the issueThe case dates back to 1947, when British Motor Car Company let out a large ground-floor and mezzanine floor in Connaught Circus to Hindustan Commercial Bank (HCB) for a monthly rent of Rs 585. In 1986, the government issued a notification merging HCB into Punjab National Bank (PNB) under the Banking Regulation Act, transferring all of HCB's rights and liabilities — including the tenancy — to the PNB, according to the court order.The landlord then sought to evict PNB, arguing that HCB had effectively handed over the premises to a new entity without ever asking for the landlord's written consent, which amounts to an unauthorised transfer of tenancy under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.The bank argued that this wasn't a voluntary handover at all — the merger happened by operation of law, through a government-sanctioned scheme, and so shouldn't count as an "assignment" that could trigger eviction.The case had gone back and forth for years. A rent controller first dismissed the landlord's eviction plea in 1995, an appellate rent tribunal reversed that and ordered eviction in 2001, and then the Delhi high court overturned the eviction order in 2012, agreeing with the bank that the merger was an involuntary, statutory act.What is Section 14(1)(b)Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, protects tenants from eviction except on specific grounds — and one of those grounds is if the tenant sub-lets, assigns, or otherwise hands over possession of the rented property to someone else without the landlord's written consent. Which simply means that if a tenant lets another person or entity take over the premises without asking the landlord first, the landlord can seek their eviction.What did the Supreme Court sayThe bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh disagreed with the high court's reasoning. It held that the wording of Section 14(1)(b) is wide enough to cover every way in which possession or tenancy rights of a rented property can pass from the original tenant to someone else. Once possession moves to a different entity without the landlord's written consent, the provision applies — regardless of why or how that transfer happened."Therefore, what is material is that – (a) there is a transfer of tenancy rights and possession of the tenanted premises; and (b) such transfer is done without the written consent of the landlord," the bench said.The court also rejected the idea that a scheme under the Banking Regulation Act sits above ordinary tenancy law, holding that whether a transfer was voluntary or not, and the reasons behind it, are simply not relevant to whether it counts as parting with possession under the rent law.Importantly, the bench held that the process by which such bank-merger schemes are framed is administrative, not legislative, in nature — meaning it doesn't carry the weight of a law that can override the Rent Control Act's requirement of written consent.The bank argued that the process used to create the merger scheme was a legislative process, not just an administrative one. Since the tenancy rights had passed to PNB through this official scheme, the bank said, it shouldn't be treated as if the tenant had handed over or transferred the property to someone else — which is what would normally trigger eviction under Section 14(1)(b).The court rejected this and said that "in our considered view, such a contention is misconceived," it observed.With that, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi high court's 2012 order and restored the 2001 eviction decree passed by the rent tribunal. Since the bank has occupied the premises for decades, the court gave it until 31 January 2027 to hand back vacant possession."The respondent(s) will furnish an undertaking before this Court to the above effect within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. The respondent(s) shall continue to pay rent on contractual terms/fixed by the Courts below. In case the respondent(s) fail to do so, then the appellant will be at liberty to proceed for taking possession in accordance with law," the court concluded.