The Supreme Court recently held that a government-sanctioned merger of banks under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, does not sweep away a landlord’s statutory protection against unauthorised subletting or assignment under rent control laws.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh clarified that rent control provisions do not differentiate between "voluntary" and "involuntary" transfers of possession.
Once an original tenant ceases to exist and a new entity takes over the premises without the landlord's written consent, the ground for eviction is legally complete.
"The applicability of the section depends upon the occurrence of a factual situation, namely, sub-letting or assignment or otherwise parting with possession... Whether it is a voluntary act of the tenant or otherwise, and also the reasons for doing so, are wholly irrelevant," the Court observed.
By way of background, in 1947 British Motor Car Company Limited (appellant) let out a prime commercial space measuring over 3,500 sq. ft. in Pratap Building at Connaught Circus in New Delhi to Hindustan Commercial Bank (HCB) at a monthly rent of ₹585.
Decades later, in December 1986, the Government of India issued a gazette notification amalgamating HCB with the public sector giant Punjab National Bank (PNB). Under this scheme, prepared by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in public interest, all assets, liabilities and physical possession of HCB's branches vested in PNB.
British Motor Car Company promptly hit the courts, filing an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). Their argument was straightforward - HCB had parted with possession and assigned the tenancy to PNB without obtaining the landlord's prior written consent.
The Supreme Court sided with the landlord.
PNB argued that it didn't sneak into the property through a private deal, rather it was placed there by a sovereign government notification. The Supreme Court, relying on its previous landmark rulings in Singer India Ltd. and Parasram Harnand Rao, held that Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act is absolute. It does not care why a tenant left or how a new tenant arrived. If the original tenant loses corporate identity and control of the space without the landlord's written signature, it triggers eviction.
The bank also contended that since the merger scheme was rolled out under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act and placed before the parliament, it acquired the status of a powerful central statute that could override local rent laws.
The Bench rejected this by pointing to the court's historic decision in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India. The Court restated that an RBI-framed amalgamation scheme is strictly an administrative function, not a legislative rule.
Because it is not a law enacted by the parliament, it doesn't possess the muscle to override the mandatory written-consent protections given to landlords under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
While the Court allowed the landlord's appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court's order, it acknowledged that PNB had been operating from the iconic Connaught Place location for a very long time.
Hence, the Court exercised equity and granted PNB a grace period until January 31, 2027, to peacefully pack up and hand over vacant possession to British Motor Car Company, subject to the bank filing a formal undertaking within four weeks and continuing to clear its rental dues.
Advocates Shyam Divan and Shyam Mehta appeared for the British Motor Car Company.
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam appeared for HCB/ PNB.
Don’t Make Banks, Taxpayers Pay for Officials’ Failures: AIBEA to Finance Ministry
Moneylife Digital Team
06 July 2026
The All-India Bank Employees' Association (AIBEA) has urged the Union government to introduce a national accountability policy requiring public sector banks (PSBs) to identify officials responsible for regulatory violations and...
Bank of Baroda Pays US$600mn To Settle NMC Health Legal Dispute, Shares Fall over 4%
Moneylife Digital Team
02 July 2026
State-owned Bank of Baroda (BoB) has entered into an out-of-court settlement with NMC Health plc, NMC Healthcare Ltd and NMC Holding Ltd, agreeing to pay US$600mn (million), or about ₹5,700 crore, to resolve a long-running legal...
How The UK High Court Held Nirav Modi Liable To Pay ₹100 Crore Personal Guarantee To Bank of India
Bar
and
Bench
25 June 2026
The High Court of Justice in London has held that fugitive economic offender Nirav Modi is personally liable to Bank of India more than $11 million (over ₹100 crore) under a 2013 personal guarantee in favour of the bank. (Bank of...
From ₹1,537 Crore to ₹73.5 Crore: SC To Hear PIL on Alleged Banking Fraud and ARC Role in JKM Infra Case
Moneylife Digital Team
19 June 2026
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored investigation into an alleged banking fraud involving more than ₹1,500 crore of public-sector bank funds, and the role of asset...
