Supreme Court's model rent agreement assures tenant 5 yrs' stay???
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 May 2011
This query is : Resolved
Supreme Court's model rent agreement assures tenant 5 yrs' stay
Dhananjay Mahapatra, May 15, 2011, 01.57am IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has drafted a model landlord-tenant agreement promising tenants five years of peaceful stay in the premises if they give rent at market rate, increase it by 10% every three years and pay the property tax for the house.
It asked the tenants to pay up every charge accrued on the house to enable the landlord get the rentals without any deduction.
"If the present and prevalent market rent assessed and fixed between the parties is paid by the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to bring any action for his eviction against such a tenant at least for a period of five years.
Thus, for five years the tenant shall enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premises," the court said. The court realized that in most landlord-tenant disputes, there were no written contracts and the tenants took advantage of the situation because of the slow process of rent control laws and the judicial process involved in eviction.
The court said adherence to these guidelines could considerably bring down litigation. This judgment would not affect the tenancy governed by existing lease deeds or specific contracts between the landlord and tenant.
It found tenants occupying the property by paying rent at a rate determined 20-25 years ago, and said half of the landlord-tenant disputes would not have reached the courts if the tenants agreed to pay rent at market rate.
Writing from personal and judicial experience, the court said: "We deem it our duty and obligation to fix some guidelines and norms for such type of litigation, so as to minimize the landlord-tenant litigation at all levels."
It said: "The tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by 10% after every three years. If the rent is too low in comparison to the market rent having been fixed almost 20 to 25 years back, then the present market rate should be worked out."
It should be determined either on the basis of valuation report or reliable estimates of building rentals in surrounding areas let out recently, said Justice Bhandari, who authored the judgment for the bench.
"The rent should be just, proper and adequate and be fixed keeping in mind the location of the property, type of construction, accessibility with the main road, availability of parking space. Care should be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord," it said.
"Apart from the rentals, property tax, water tax, maintenance charges, electricity charges for the actual consumption of the tenanted premises and for common area shall be payable by the tenant only so that the landlord gets the actual rent out of which nothing should be deductible," he said.
"In case there is enhancement in property tax, water tax or maintenance charges, electricity charges then the same shall also be borne by the tenant only," the bench said.
Minor repairs of the premises would be carried out by the tenant from his own pocket and he could not undertake any major repairs, requiring reimbursement, without prior permission from the landlord, the bench said.
"If any major repairs are carried out then in that case only after obtaining permission from the landlord in writing, the same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to adjustment of the amount spent thereon, would have to be worked out between the parties," the court said.
Valuable experts please comment upon this latest judgement....
A V Vishal
(Expert) 24 May 2011
Good move by courts to bring harmony and lessen the litigations prevalent in such cases, but practically must be yet to be tested.
Guest
(Expert) 24 May 2011
If it is so, then maximum cases of litigation between landlord and tenant can be avoided. But, question arises, would the landlords of new properties adopt that 5-year agreement. They are accustomed to 11 moth's agreement, with hefty increase in rent every year from the tenants instead of 10% every three years?
Guest
(Expert) 24 May 2011
WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID MATTER KINDLY NOTE THAT.
1SC JUDGEMENTS ARE FOLLOWED BY LOWER COURTS.
2.STILL THE LANDLORD MAY NOT BE WILLING TO TAKE RISK OF GIVING PROPERTY ON RENT FOR LONG TERM OF FIVE YEARS AS SEVERAL LITIGATIONS ARE PENDING IN COURTS AS THERE IS A TENDENCY TO INCREASE RENT BY LANDLORD AND NOT TO VACATE THE PREMICES BY TENENTS DUE TO NON REFUND OF DEPOSITS AND FOR OTHER
REASONS.
3.IN ADDITION TO THAT THE MIDDLE MEN LIKE ESTATE AGENTS WHO ARE CHARGING THREE MONTHS RENTS AS COMMISSION FROM TENENTS WILL ALSO BE RELUCTANT TO GIVE SUCH LONG TERM INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM WHERE THEY ARE BENEFITED.
POOR HOMELESS PERSONS AND FAMILIES SUFFER A LOT TO GET ACCOMMODATION IN CITIES AS RENTS ARE INCREASED AND EVEN IF ELEVEN MONTHS LEAVE LICENCE AGREEMENT IS THERE POOR TENENT HAS TO PAY COMMISSION OF THREE MONTHS RENT TO THE AGENT AND ALSO FOR REGISTRATION CHARGES OF SAID LEAVE LICENCE AGREEMENT.
THERE IS A NEED TO AMMEND THE EXHISTING LAWS TO PROTECT THE POOR TENENTS WHO ARE PAYING ELEVEN MONTHS RENT TO LANDLORD PLUS THREE MONTHS COMMISSIONS TO AGENT FOR GETING PREMICES ON RENT FOR ELEVEN MONTHS.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT MAY HELP REDUCE THE HARASSMENT OF NEEDY FAMILIES AND PERSONS STAYING ON LEAVE LICENCE BASIS AND HAVE TO RENEW THE AGREEMENTS EVERY YEAR OR TO SEARCH FOR ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION BY PAYING FOURTEEN MONTHS RENT FOR STAY OF ELEVEN MONTHS.
WITH BEST REGARDS TO ALL.GOOD LUCK.
NANDKUMR B.SAWANT.M.COM.LL.B.(MUMBAI),ADVOCATE
Bhawani Mahapatra
(Expert) 24 May 2011
Its nice to see that the Apex court has framed a guideline to safeguard the interest of the tenants who are being harassed by the landlords every day. But now its time to watch its practical implementation. The tenants always prefer to live peacefullyy, may be for shorter periods, rather to fight a legal bettle with the landlords.
IN ANOTHER WAY IT SEEMS TO VIOLATE THE CONTRACT LAWS ALSO. ONE CANNOT COMPEL SOME BODY TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC PERIOD. IF BOTH PARTIES ARE AGREE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN PERIOD FOR CERTAIN CONSIDERATION, THEN LAW SHOULDN'T PREVENT THEM.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 24 May 2011
