Taxing tenants

"The BPP (Bombay Parsi Punchayet) views its tenants like a landlord, not as a trustee would view his beneficiaries,” alleged the Parsi tari arsi column in The Bombay Samachar of October 5, 2003. Columnist Berjis Desai, a noted solicitor, had expressed his ire with the manner in which the Punchayet functions following the demise of a tenant.

According to the Rent Act, a relative residing with the tenant at the time of his demise or his legal heir is automatically entitled to the tenancy, explained Desai. Yet the Punchayet acts as if it is doing the heir a favor and insists that he sign a new contract of tenancy "bristling with onerous terms” which are disadvantageous to him. Any non-Zoroastrian relative using the premises would result in forfeiting of the tenancy under the new agreement. Also installation of partitions, screens and electrical fittings without written consent of the landlord are forbidden.

The clause which Desai finds offensive is the one stipulating that "the tenant agree that in the event the size of his family dwindles...the landlord shall have exclusive right to transfer the tenant to any other premises (which may be smaller than the said premises now rented to the tenant) in exchange for these said premises so as to enable the landlord to house a large family...”

What the columnist considers "equally odious is the next clause under which the tenant gives his irrevocable consent to the trustees to do all sorts of things in the name of repairs and reconstruction. At the time of signing this new contract of tenancy and granting the rent receipt the trustees also hike up the rent by nearly 200 percent...”

Counsels Desai, "Every self respecting Parsi should refuse to sign this contract of tenancy. His rights are conferred upon by the law and no harm can come to him if he does not sign such a contract of tenancy. Those who have already signed this contract should address letters to the trustees stating that they were made to sign this contract under duress and ignorance of their legal rights...and therefore such a contract is not binding upon them.”

The Punchayet is in the process of amending several of the clauses Desai has objected to, according to one of the trustees.

Tenants in Parsi baugs are not the only ones at the receiving end. Animal lover Ratty Javeri, occupying two adjacent flats admeasuring 4,500 sq ft at Belvedere Court near Oval Maidan, was served a notice by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India to vacate the premises and pay Rs 1.71 crores in damages, as reported in the Bombay Times of January 22, 2004. Javeri has reportedly filed a contempt petition citing the previous order of the Bombay High Court which had directed LIC to give adequate opportunity to the tenant of being heard before passing any order. The court had also asked LIC to give four weeks’ time to the tenants. Both these stipulations were overlooked by LIC’s estate officer, maintained Javeri’s petition.

Javeri had been served an order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 which was brought into force to remove government officials and politicians who refused to vacate official premises. The Act was amended in 1975 when it included premises not only owned directly by the government but also by government controlled corporations, thereby affecting many Parsi tenants.