As govt dithers, tenants continue to suffer under 10-month deposit norm

The state government seems to be dragging its feet on passing a law to regulate the house rental sector even as the number of disputes is on the rise.

In 2011, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation had drafted a Model Residential Tenancy Act, 2011 to all state governments to “debate, discuss, to hold consultations and implement it” in keeping with the states’ requirements.

The Act had touched upon the issue of making it unlawful for a landlord to charge more than three months’ rent as security deposit. Again, in 2015, a draft model Tenancy Act 2015 was issued by the Union government and circulated to the state government for consideration. But till date, there has been no action from the state government.

Later, a PIL was filed in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the unregulated practice of 10-month advance charged by house owners. The petitioner, Dove Drive Without Borders Foundation said that due to the absence of any guidelines or rules, landlords are completely free to charge any sum they wish as “interest-free refundable security deposit”. They had sought directions to the government to frame guidelines and policies to regulate rental agreements.

The high court directed the petitioner to give a representation to the government. Waseem Memon from the Foundation said that they followed the high court order and gave a representation to the housing department which was later referred to the revenue department. But till date, there has been no response.

Sonali Mukherjee, who had taken up an apartment in Alpine Eco in Doddanekundi near Marathahalli, is yet to get her advance back even two years after vacating the flat. “I haven’t got back the security deposit of Rs 1.4 lakh even two years after vacating the flat. My owner failed to pay maintenance charges to the apartment society which made it difficult for me to get access to the apartment’s amenities.” Sonali said that though she had approached the police, they were not of much help.

The petitioner has already made a representation to the Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner. When contacted, V Shankar, DC, Bengaluru Urban, said he is neither aware of the subject nor the representation given to his office. The DC said he is yet to learn about the draft model Tenancy Act in 2011. The petitioners are now contemplating moving the court again.