Tuesday, 18 May 2010

New Delhi's commercial property owners suffer under decades-old rent caps

An archaic rent control law in New Delhi means landlords of valuable buildings are often financially much worse off than their tenants.
NEW DELHI // In 1933, when Lala Babu Ram heard the British were looking for investors to help build New Delhi - India's new capital - he sensed an opportunity to provide for his family for generations to come.
He purchased a plot in M-Block of Connaught Place, the commercial heart of the new city, and paid for the construction of a three-storey property with apartments above and shops below. More than seven decades later, the building that cost Ram a few thousand dollars to construct is now worth millions as prime real estate in one of the world's largest emerging economies. But far from being the golden goose Ram thought it would be, the property has become more like an albatross around his descendants' necks because of Delhi's archaic rent control law.
Introduced a few years after the building was completed, the law means only that his descendants receive 150 rupees (Dh12) a month in rent from each of their three shops. "Our tenants spend more on parking their car or a cup of coffee than they do on their rent," Mr Ram Kanwar Gupta, Ram's 87-year-old son, said in an interview. "I can't afford a sweeper for that money, let alone maintenance." The Delhi Rent Control Act was introduced in 1947 to prevent rents from skyrocketing as hundreds of thousands of refugees from Pakistan flooded into the city in need of affordable housing.
Sixty-three years on, however, the law still caps rents in thousands of properties around Delhi, with the result that many of the city's oldest buildings are being left to crumble while the price of newer property is pushed ever higher. Analysts have also calculated that the city is losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue because of the law, which has also hindered efforts to modernise the capital.
For years, many owners simply accepted the low returns rather than engage in the expensive and lengthy legal battles required to raise rents or evict tenants, many of whom are now richer than their landlords. As India's economy booms and property prices soar, landlords are coming together to fight for what they see as their right to receive a fair rent. Formed last year, the Committee for the Repeal of the Delhi Rent Control Act, is challenging the legality of the law in Delhi's High Court, saying it deprives landlords of their constitutional right to a livelihood.
"The law was designed to help the poor, but it is the rich who are benefiting now," Shobha Aggarwal, a founding member of the committee said. "In effect we are subsidising other peoples' businesses." As it stands, the law in Delhi prohibits owners from evicting tenants unless the landlord can prove they need the property for their own personal use. The law also caps rent increases at 10 per cent every three years in properties where the rent is less than 3,500 rupees a month.
Because many properties in Delhi's oldest - and now most sought after - areas such as Connaught Place, Old Delhi and Khan Market have been occupied for decades, rents are still only a couple of hundred rupees, or lower. Many of those buildings house businesses with multimillion-dollar turnovers such as banks or insurance companies. Some, however, are home to tiny one-man businesses that seem to belong to a bygone era - shops on Connaught Place include light-bulb sellers, an old-stamp dealer and a snackw store. Other buildings simply lie empty because it is cheaper for tenants to keep paying for a space they do not use now than to take on a new lease at market rates later.
The problem, analysts say, is that there is little political will to repeal a law that is ostensibly pro-poor in a city where some two-thirds of the population live in slums. As a result, Delhi and India's financial capital, Mumbai - where rent control laws are also unreformed - both suffer from a shortage of leasable property and rents in the two cities are some of the highest in the world. Anshuman Magazine, the Indian chairman of the property consultancy firm, CB Richard Ellis, said: "In terms of services you get far less than you do in New York or Hong Kong though you are paying a comparable amount." The market rate for renting space at Connaught Place is as much as 550 rupees a month per square foot - more than the combined rent Mr Ram's family receives for three shops that cover almost 1,000 square feet.
Many tenants exploit this difference and sublet their properties. In K-block of Connaught Place, Rajendar Kumar, who has a manual typewriter repair shop, tells the story of two neighbours who rent shops from the landlord for 33 rupees each - roughly the same amount Mr Kumar pays. The shop to the left looks stuck in time, a gentlemen's outfitters selling polyester jackets and ties from the 1970s, its sign obscured by dust, paint and pigeon droppings.
The shop to the right is a glass-fronted service centre for one of India's new mobile telecoms providers. The tenant there has sublet the shop, taking hundreds of thousand of rupees rent a month, Mr Kumar said. In the hope of making some money from his property, the owner offered to do what many Delhi landlords eventually end up doing - sell the properties to his tenants at way below the market value.
But Mr Kumar refused. "Why would I want to that?" Mr Kumar asked. "The minute you own a property, you have to start paying taxes." @Email:hgardner@thenational.ae

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Rent control act unfair deal for landlords

Rent control act unfair deal for landlords: Delhi High Court

Abhinav Garg, TNN 6 May, 2010


Delhi high court's decision to hear a petition challenging the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has come as a shot in the arm for beleaguered landlords who have been getting paltry rents for the prime properties they let out. The landlord-tenant dispute has once again come into focus with an association of women landlords from the capital recently moving court.
With the Supreme Court tilting the balance in favour of landlords — allowing them to invoke need even for commercial properties — through a series of rulings over the past few years, the only defence still available to a tenant is the age-old DRC Act which places a ceiling on rent in the capital.
If the HC now bats for landlords while adjudicating the latest petition, one can expect swift disposal of disputes before the rent control tribunals where such cases are decided.
Until now, additional rent control (ARC) courts remained bereft of fresh cases because property owners were hesitant to take to court disputes which would drag on for years, even as the tenant enjoyed continuous and unhindered rights of occupancy over a premise. The status quo meant a property continued to be enjoyed by the tenant.
The only way a tenant can now hope to cling on to a house is by proving in court that his landlord does not actually need the property, a very difficult thing to do.
Speaking to TOI, advocate Atul Mathur, who takes up property-related disputes, said tenants were becoming increasingly indefensible now that the odds are clearly stacked in favour of landlords.
''Although it is too early to say anything definitively, since fresh cases are still at the arguments stage, but there is actually no defence left for a tenant living in a commercial property. I have myself advised three landlord clients to move court because their chances of winning have, after the SC rulings, brightened,'' Mathur confided.
Lawyers said that for the first time a tenant can be asked by a landlord to vacate his premises. Earlier, non-payment of rent or discreet subletting were the only two technical defaults committed by a tenant that allowed a landlord to take back his property.
Eviction can now be sought on need. And courts hearing such cases will witness how landlords play around with the word need, since the scope for it has been widened. More importantly, bonafide need can now be claimed not just for the owner of the property but also for his or her dependent family, elaborated another lawyer.
As petitioners before the Delhi high court, the landladies Shobha Aggarwal, Suman Jain and Seema Khandelwal argue, the DRC Act is ''an archaic legislation that needs to be struck down as unconstitutional''.
Provided the high court agrees with these women, numerous landlords in Delhi can now become hopeful about getting much higher rents for the properties that they let out.
Delhi high court's decision to hear a petition challenging the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has come as a shot in the arm for beleaguered landlords who have been getting paltry rents for the prime properties they let out. The landlord-tenant dispute has once again come into focus with an association of women landlords from the capital recently moving court.
With the Supreme Court tilting the balance in favour of landlords — allowing them to invoke need even for commercial properties — through a series of rulings over the past few years, the only defence still available to a tenant is the age-old DRC Act which places a ceiling on rent in the capital.
If the HC now bats for landlords while adjudicating the latest petition, one can expect swift disposal of disputes before the rent control tribunals where such cases are decided.
Until now, additional rent control (ARC) courts remained bereft of fresh cases because property owners were hesitant to take to court disputes which would drag on for years, even as the tenant enjoyed continuous and unhindered rights of occupancy over a premise. The status quo meant a property continued to be enjoyed by the tenant.
The only way a tenant can now hope to cling on to a house is by proving in court that his landlord does not actually need the property, a very difficult thing to do.
Speaking to TOI, advocate Atul Mathur, who takes up property-related disputes, said tenants were becoming increasingly indefensible now that the odds are clearly stacked in favour of landlords.
''Although it is too early to say anything definitively, since fresh cases are still at the arguments stage, but there is actually no defence left for a tenant living in a commercial property. I have myself advised three landlord clients to move court because their chances of winning have, after the SC rulings, brightened,'' Mathur confided.
Lawyers said that for the first time a tenant can be asked by a landlord to vacate his premises. Earlier, non-payment of rent or discreet subletting were the only two technical defaults committed by a tenant that allowed a landlord to take back his property.
Eviction can now be sought on need. And courts hearing such cases will witness how landlords play around with the word need, since the scope for it has been widened. More importantly, bonafide need can now be claimed not just for the owner of the property but also for his or her dependent family, elaborated another lawyer.
As petitioners before the Delhi high court, the landladies Shobha Aggarwal, Suman Jain and Seema Khandelwal argue, the DRC Act is ''an archaic legislation that needs to be struck down as unconstitutional''.
Provided the high court agrees with these women, numerous landlords in Delhi can now become hopeful about getting much higher rents for the properties that they let out.

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Women landlords seek repeal of rent Act

Women landlords seek repeal of rent Act

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has agreed to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958.

A division bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Valmiki J Mehta recently admitted a petition seeking repeal of the Act on the grounds that it had become an archaic piece of legislation due to which many landlords were suffering.The petitioners,all women,led by the president of a committee for repeal of the Act,Shobha Aggarwal,informed the court that they received a pittance as rent for their properties which have been given to big companies.Arguing that the Act was passed as a temporary measure but had now become a tool to aid vested interests,the petitioners complained that they had been deprived of rightful rents for over five decades because of the Act.It has outlived its utility and has now become a tool of oppression in the hands statutory tenants, the petition said. The Act places the burden of subsidizing some of the tenants (who may be rich) on some of the property owners (who may not be rich) whereas in all the other spheres of economic activities,the burden of subsidizing any section of society is placed on all tax payers in general, the petition stated.

Praying for compensation to hundreds of property owners who have been deprived of the market rent,the petition is slated to come up for hearing next month when the Delhi government and the central governments will place their stands.The bench will commence regular hearing on it after that.

Monday, 26 April 2010

Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 challenged in court

 
NEWS HOME
»
INDIA

Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 challenged in court
New Delhi | Monday, Apr 26 2010 IST
 
  COMMENTS Print this Page  PRINT SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend 
  



The Delhi High Court has issued notices to the Centre and Delhi Government and gave them three weeks time to respond to a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), 1958. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Valmiki J Mehta directed the governments to file their response to the petition and listed the matter for first week of July.
One Shobha Aggarwal and her two sisters have filed a petition in the court seeking that the DRCA should be done away with as it is five decades old and does not adhere to the present rent structure. The Act, passed way back in 1958, is an archaic legislation liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner said.
Ms Aggarwal and her sisters, who own a property of 800 sq meters on Asaf Ali road, said their property was rented out by her grandmother Sharbati Devi in 1955 for a rent of Rs 400 per month.
''Now after 55 years, we are still getting the same rent whereas the tenant's sons and grandsons are enjoying the fruits of the property by earning crores from the business at that premises,'' the petitioners said.
''If we go by the DRCA 1958 , we cannot ask the tenant to vacate the property as he does not fall under the ambit of this Act if his monthly rent is less than Rs 3,500 per month,'' Ms Shobha said.
''Lakhs of landlords who own property worth crores are getting monthly rents as Rs 400, Rs 600 or at the most Rs 1,200 and are living in a miserable state as they do not get worth of their property,'' the petitioner said. The tenants, who would have other wise had to shell out about Rs 2-4 lakh rent for the same property, are paying a pittiance to the landlords, Ms Shobha said. ''Even though you have some grounds to get the property vacated, it takes 25 to 30 years to fight a case in the court as our laws are faulty and outdated,'' Ms Shobha said.
''We three sisters are fighting the case for years and till now we haven't succeeded. Similarly, lakhs and lakhs of litigants are suffering and wasting their lakhs of rupees on litigation on the hope that some day they'll succeed,'' Ms Shobha said.
''This Act is violative of the Fundamental Right as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution which is Right to Livelihood. Can't a women earn her livelihood by renting out her property?''Ms Shobha asked.
The DRCA Act arbitrarily deprives property owners the use and enjoyment of their property either for self use or for economic gains, Ms Shobha said.
Citing Article 17 of December 10, 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations General Assembly, which states, ''Everyone has a right to own a property alone or in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property,'' Ms Shobha said since India is a signatory to this treaty it cannot violate this. The petitioner cited a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights passed on June 19, 2006, which in a case held the Polish government liable and said,'' The Polish Government had imposed disproportionate and excessive burden on Mrs Hutten-Czapska (landlady) which could not be justified by any legitimate community interest.'' The European Court had directed to compensate all those effected by the rent control legislation.
-- (UNI) -- 26DI41.xml