Tenants in Delhi occupying commercial properties in prime locations have predictably reacted angrily to a Supreme Court judgement that gives landlords the right to get their premises vacated for bona fide needs. This is one judgement that should be of interest to people across the country where tenants have become de facto owners of rented commercial properties, reducing some of the landlords to penury. It will appeal to those landlords who, as once described by late 'Young Turk' Chandra Shekhar, move on foot or bicycles while their tenants ride Rolls Royce.

The court's ruling could result in nearly half of Delhi traders facing the threat of eviction. All that may be a bit of exaggeration. When the fashionable malls and boutiques built without authorisation were pulled down last year by court order the same cries were heard. But there is no doubt that the apex court's judgement should worry a large number of tenants in Delhi who have been paying insignificant amounts as rent for occupying commercial properties in best business districts.

The 'due process of law'-euphemism for the snail's pace of justice in India--will ensure that even if the court's orders are applied immediately, no 'commercial' tenant will be in danger of being thrown out overnight. The traders have said they will put up a fight. They have spoken about appealing against the court judgement; their representative bodies have threatened agitation. The traders will also bank on support from politicians, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party which has always been known for its proximity to traders. With election in the air, politicians will be only too happy to support the traders.

The traders who perceive threat from the court judgement have said that many 'landmarks' in Delhi will disappear if the tenants from prominent commercial areas are evicted. That will be indeed sad but then the public may be able to quickly adjust to new landmarks that will surely emerge if the old ones go away.

Many new 'landmarks' are coming up in Delhi as it races to become a 'world class city'. In fact, one of the oldest and most famous commercial landmarks in Delhi, Connaught Place, was on the verge of extinction and an even older one, Chandni Chowk, had fallen on bad days till their fortunes were revived by the advent of the Metro.

The politicians who come to the aid of traders need to understand that the apex court's judgement is not very different from what they had themselves decided back in the 1990s when parliament had 'unanimously' passed a legislation that had also received the nod from the President. The new law, an improvement upon the previous one passed in 1958, was supposed to give the landlords the right to get their commercial premises vacated. The Delhi Rent (Control) Act 1995, however, never came into force because the necessary formality of 'notifying' it had been withheld deliberately.

There are perhaps very few instances in the history of the country when a legislation was virtually aborted despite its 'unanimous' approval by the elected representatives and the head of the state. The 1995 Act met the fate it did because of the clout of tenants doing business in thriving commercial areas while incurring ridiculously low rent liability. They had shown that they could subvert even a piece of legislation. A popular belief among many Indians is that 'fools build houses (property) and wise men occupy them'!

It is clear that a large section of politicians acted as accomplices of the commercial tenants in preventing the enforcement of the 1995 act. But this time if the politicians repeat that trick they might have to confront the highest court in the land.

The politicians have to be told that the Supreme Court thought that the previous law that prevented eviction of tenants in possession of commercial premises was unconstitutional because it violated 'the doctrine of equality' embodied in Article 14. The court has observed that a legislation may be 'quite rational and reasonable' at the time of its enactment but with lapse of time or due to change of circumstances may become 'arbitrary' or violate 'the doctrine of equality.'

What made the politicians conduct in relation to the 1995 measure questionable was that almost the same set of politicians that eventually opposed the legislation had earlier pledged support to the landlords. That is why the bill for the new act was passed quickly-and unanimously--in parliament. But the BJP then did a sudden about turn and went about complaining that the legislation was introduced and passed in parliament without providing an opportunity for deliberating upon it.

The traders who are likely to be affected oppose any move that they think favours the landlords and does not take into consideration the problems they (traders) might have to face. The tenants are not ready to surrender the huge advantage that they derive by paying incredibly low rents. In areas like Chandni Chowk and Connaught Place, for instance, monthly rents paid by old tenants for running their commercial establishments are generally a few hundred rupees or a couple of thousand rupees, whereas the 'market rent' is said to be in six or seven figures.

Whatever they might say the tenants in thriving commercial places do not want a pay the current 'market rent' for running their business because they have been occupying the premises for decades-in some cases perhaps a century-and that makes them virtual owners of the property. The traders justify the low rents on the ground that when the premises were first rented they or their ancestors had paid a handsome 'pagri' (deposit) to the landlord. That sounds true though it is highly doubtful if that amount equalled the value of the property taken on rent, as the traders -tenants say. If that was the case why didn't the original tenant buy the property outright instead of taking it on rent? It cannot be said that in a free country the owner of a property has no right to expect increasing returns.

Many, if not most Indians, continue to see investment in property as insurance for future. Nobody builds a property to see that it gives zero returns and becomes a liability when forced to spend more on its maintenance than the income received from rent.

Recently the New Delhi Municipal Corporation decided to undertake the job of restoring the façade of mostly privately owned Connaught Place buildings, housing many 'landmark' shops and business premises, to their original shape. The job should have been taken up by the landlords but they have obviously refused to do so because they do not get any reasonable return from their tenants. The NDMC need not have taken on an exercise involving taxpayers' money if a realistic policy dealing with landlords and tenants in commercial areas had been in place.

-Syndicate Features