GANGTOK, 13 May: In the absence of statutory legislation to deal with Rent Control and Evictions in Sikkim, the High Court of Sikkim has suggested that the State government legislate a comprehensive statutory law for Sikkim in this regard.
Several rent control and eviction suits have been reaching the courts of late, but in the absence of absolute and statutory laws, it was proving difficult to deal with the issues and rights of both landlords/ house owners and tenants in depth.
The single bench of the High Court of Sikkim comprising of Chief Justice Pius Chakkalayil Kuriakose, while dealing with an appeal instituted by Rajala Devi, wife of late Rameshwar Prasad, of Singtam Bazar, observed that “…the eviction of tenants in the Gangtok Bazaar area is governed by the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956. As for the other areas of the State not falling within the Gangtok Bazaar Area, the rights and liabilities of the landlords and tenants in the matter of eviction are governed by Notification No. 6326-600-H & W-B. I must say that the position which obtains under the statute which governs the Gangtok Bazaar Area and the Notification which governs the other parts of the State is not satisfactory.”
The Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956 and Notification No. 6326-600-H&W-B were promulgated by an order of the Maharaja of Sikkim on 14 April, 1949.
Pointing out the limitation of this 64 year old piece of legislation, the Chief Justice observed that the very definitions of the terms ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ are “quite unsatisfactory and contrary to the definition given in rent control legislations prevailing in other parts of the country”.
The Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act and subsequent Notification dealt the tenant is defined as “persons in actual occupation” and landlord means “the owner of the premises”. In other words anybody in actual occupation including the trespassers and licensees can be a tenant who will be liable to be evicted only in terms of the notification. Going by the definition, only owners will qualify as landlords, the Court said.
Clause 2 of the Notification No. 6326-600-H&W-B states that “The landlords cannot eject the tenants so long as the scarcity of housing accommodation lasts, but when the whole or part of the premises are required for their personal occupation or for thorough overhauling the premises or on failure by the tenants to pay rent for four months the landlords may be permitted to evict the tenant on due application to the Chief Court.”
This clause, the High Court observes, is “quite unsatisfactory and outdated”, adding that to provide for the very valuable right of the landlord to evict his tenant on valid grounds and the equally valuable right of an entrenched tenant to deny existence of specified grounds. Unlike the case of various other rent control legislations prevailing in the country, the language employed in the notification is ‘unintelligible and capable of creating confusion to the parties’, the Court and to everybody else concerned, the court observed.
The Court also comments that even the Act, which deals only with the Gangtok Bazaar Area, does not provide for an ideal statutory situation. In these modern times, when the right to obtain eviction on valid grounds and the right to defend eviction on grounds which are not genuine, are valuable rights from the points of the landlord and tenant respectively.
Ideally, the Government will take requisite steps for legislating a comprehensive law on the pattern of any one of the rent control legislations prevailing in various States of India providing for clear grounds on which an eviction can be given and also for the valid defence to the tenants to resist eviction if the same is sought on insufficient grounds.
Several rent control and eviction suits have been reaching the courts of late, but in the absence of absolute and statutory laws, it was proving difficult to deal with the issues and rights of both landlords/ house owners and tenants in depth.
The single bench of the High Court of Sikkim comprising of Chief Justice Pius Chakkalayil Kuriakose, while dealing with an appeal instituted by Rajala Devi, wife of late Rameshwar Prasad, of Singtam Bazar, observed that “…the eviction of tenants in the Gangtok Bazaar area is governed by the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956. As for the other areas of the State not falling within the Gangtok Bazaar Area, the rights and liabilities of the landlords and tenants in the matter of eviction are governed by Notification No. 6326-600-H & W-B. I must say that the position which obtains under the statute which governs the Gangtok Bazaar Area and the Notification which governs the other parts of the State is not satisfactory.”
The Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956 and Notification No. 6326-600-H&W-B were promulgated by an order of the Maharaja of Sikkim on 14 April, 1949.
Pointing out the limitation of this 64 year old piece of legislation, the Chief Justice observed that the very definitions of the terms ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ are “quite unsatisfactory and contrary to the definition given in rent control legislations prevailing in other parts of the country”.
The Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act and subsequent Notification dealt the tenant is defined as “persons in actual occupation” and landlord means “the owner of the premises”. In other words anybody in actual occupation including the trespassers and licensees can be a tenant who will be liable to be evicted only in terms of the notification. Going by the definition, only owners will qualify as landlords, the Court said.
Clause 2 of the Notification No. 6326-600-H&W-B states that “The landlords cannot eject the tenants so long as the scarcity of housing accommodation lasts, but when the whole or part of the premises are required for their personal occupation or for thorough overhauling the premises or on failure by the tenants to pay rent for four months the landlords may be permitted to evict the tenant on due application to the Chief Court.”
This clause, the High Court observes, is “quite unsatisfactory and outdated”, adding that to provide for the very valuable right of the landlord to evict his tenant on valid grounds and the equally valuable right of an entrenched tenant to deny existence of specified grounds. Unlike the case of various other rent control legislations prevailing in the country, the language employed in the notification is ‘unintelligible and capable of creating confusion to the parties’, the Court and to everybody else concerned, the court observed.
The Court also comments that even the Act, which deals only with the Gangtok Bazaar Area, does not provide for an ideal statutory situation. In these modern times, when the right to obtain eviction on valid grounds and the right to defend eviction on grounds which are not genuine, are valuable rights from the points of the landlord and tenant respectively.
Ideally, the Government will take requisite steps for legislating a comprehensive law on the pattern of any one of the rent control legislations prevailing in various States of India providing for clear grounds on which an eviction can be given and also for the valid defence to the tenants to resist eviction if the same is sought on insufficient grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...