Share
Landlords get more power
Hello Friends,
Read this news piece from TOI (21 dec, 2007) on SC landmark. What's your take on this?
Read this news piece from TOI (21 dec, 2007) on SC landmark. What's your take on this?
In what could spell a better deal for harried landlords, the Supreme Court has put up a "good behaviour" signal for tenants, making it clear that those who misbehave with the owner of the premises are liable for eviction.
Not just that. The apex court has also said that tenants causing damage to property are also liable for eviction. While it has not spelt out the nature of damage, this definition may also include wholesale alterations of old properties that are under tenancy for decades.
The obligation to be civil and to take care of the premises must be welcome to landlords in several cities who have been at the receiving end of defiant tenants who, taking advantage of laws that are seen to be loaded in their favour, refuse to vacate properties they got for a song years ago.
Any violation of these conditions would make the courts rule in favour of the landlord if he seeks eviction of the tenant, said a Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and P Sathasivam in a recent judgment.
The ruling put paid to the effort of a tenant who, accused of misbehaviour and damaging a portion of the house, was determined to stay put. The tenant broke a collapsible gate at the rented premises. When the landlady protested, he threatened her with dire consequences.
The ruling brought the curtains down on an eviction litigation that started more than 30 years back in 1976. In the process, it also served to highlight the vulnerability of landlords before tenants, who take advantage of the tortuous legal process to frustrate eviction efforts.
In many cities, landlords who rented out their premises have ended up being evicted from their own houses, in some cases forced to hire accommodation at rates several times higher than what they get as rent from their own properties.
In Delhi and Mumbai, many tenants have held on to the premises in commercial districts and upscale residential localities, paying rents as ridiculously low as just a couple of hundred rupees a month.
The two caveats entered by the Supreme Court, however, don’t alter the legal regime dramatically. But as precedent, they can potentially right the balance somewhat, bringing the pendulum in the tenant’s favour towards the centre. Significantly, the apex court gave the ruling under a central law, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, with the Bench reading it along with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
Not just that. The apex court has also said that tenants causing damage to property are also liable for eviction. While it has not spelt out the nature of damage, this definition may also include wholesale alterations of old properties that are under tenancy for decades.
The obligation to be civil and to take care of the premises must be welcome to landlords in several cities who have been at the receiving end of defiant tenants who, taking advantage of laws that are seen to be loaded in their favour, refuse to vacate properties they got for a song years ago.
Any violation of these conditions would make the courts rule in favour of the landlord if he seeks eviction of the tenant, said a Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and P Sathasivam in a recent judgment.
The ruling put paid to the effort of a tenant who, accused of misbehaviour and damaging a portion of the house, was determined to stay put. The tenant broke a collapsible gate at the rented premises. When the landlady protested, he threatened her with dire consequences.
The ruling brought the curtains down on an eviction litigation that started more than 30 years back in 1976. In the process, it also served to highlight the vulnerability of landlords before tenants, who take advantage of the tortuous legal process to frustrate eviction efforts.
In many cities, landlords who rented out their premises have ended up being evicted from their own houses, in some cases forced to hire accommodation at rates several times higher than what they get as rent from their own properties.
In Delhi and Mumbai, many tenants have held on to the premises in commercial districts and upscale residential localities, paying rents as ridiculously low as just a couple of hundred rupees a month.
The two caveats entered by the Supreme Court, however, don’t alter the legal regime dramatically. But as precedent, they can potentially right the balance somewhat, bringing the pendulum in the tenant’s favour towards the centre. Significantly, the apex court gave the ruling under a central law, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, with the Bench reading it along with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
Comment