CONDEMNED: Buildings such as these have fallen into disrepair as a result of disputes between landlords and tenants

But no solution was in sight till the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, came into being with the objective of making the process faster and providing a “level playing field for the parties involved”. However, the Act was kept in abeyance and was amended several times. Only recently have several of its provisions been brought into effect. However, instead of benefiting tenants and landlords, the Act seems to have only managed to create a lot of confusion.

The main confusion is to do with fixing the ‘fair’ rent. Under the provisions of the new Act, the annual ‘fair’ rent for premises let out after 1984 will be calculated by dividing the cost of the land and construction by 16. The rent for premises let out 20 years before 1984 will be three times the rent paid on July 1, 1976, while that of premises let out 10 years before 1984 will be twice the rent paid on July 1, 1986.

For premises let out for non-residential purposes, the hike would be five times if they were let out 20 years before 1984, and three times if they were let out 10 years before 1984. There is a provision for raising the rent every three years by 5 per cent and the tenant shall be required to spend at least 10 per cent of the rent on maintenance every year.

But strangely, the fair rent is not with retrospective effect from 2001, which is when the Act was to have really come into effect. It can be claimed only two months from the time the landlord files the case. “This means that despite all the dates and time periods that have been mentioned, the landlord is not being able to take advantage of the provisions,” says senior lawyer Geetanath Ganguly.

The rent ceiling for avoiding the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act ? under which once the lease period expires, the tenant has to vacate the premises ? has also been raised. From Rs 20 a month it has now been hiked to Rs 6,500 a month for residences in Calcutta and from Rs 1,000 to Rs 3,000 a month in Howrah. The hike for property with non-residential status is from Rs 3,000 to Rs 10,000 in Calcutta and from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 5,000 in Howrah.

These provisions, incorporated as amendments to the original Act, may sound good on paper but will hardly solve the legal complexities that have plagued tenant-landlord disputes, say lawyers. “All these calculations will come to nought if the tenant says that the landlord has miscalculated the fair rent according to the new system. And cases will drag on as usual,” says lawyer Trinath Ganguly. Agrees lawyer Joymalya Bagchi, “This has actually made it difficult for both landlords and tenants.”

The previous Act (West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956), according to legal professionals, had a distinct tenant bias. Rents remained abysmally low, maintenance suffered and promoters moved in. “Thanks to the biased law and the tenants’ organisations that took advantage of it, revision of rent and eviction became virtually impossible. So the landlords’ grievance was partly justified. But what we have now is perhaps worse. This law has not been framed by legal people,” says Geetanath Ganguly.

However, there are a couple of counts on which things have improved. Tenants can now be sued only if they have defaulted on three months’ rent instead of two. The provisions relating to eviction have also been made more stringent. Earlier, the landlord could evict a tenant if he required the premises for his personal use. Now, any eviction on grounds of necessity shall have to be cleared by a court and the grounds shall have to be ‘reasonable’.

Another thorny issue that the Act has not addressed properly is the one on arbitration. Government appointed rent controllers continue to remain the arbitrators in landlord-tenant disputes. But the new law says that they can only arbitrate in non-eviction cases. Certain civil courts have been earmarked to deal with the eviction suits. This bifurcation in arbitration has added to the general confusion. “It was suddenly discovered that the rent controller had no authority to handle eviction cases. So things are now in a flux and nobody knows when they are going to fall in place,” says Ganguly.

But this is one legal area that needs to be sorted out quickly for it will determine the ownership pattern of real estate in Calcutta and West Bengal in the years to come.