<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe Act aims to establish a more robust trust relationship\nbetween tenants and landlords by clearly outlining their obligations. It seeks to cover both urban as well as rural areas. The Act will\napply to premises let out for residential, commercial or educational use, but\nnot for industrial use. It also will not cover hotels, inns and lodging houses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Act will promote rental housing in the\ncountry having more than one crore vacant houses available for rent and will\ncompliment Prime Ministers vision of \u2018Housing for All\u2019 by 2022\u201d, said Hardeep\nSingh Puri, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs. The Act is expected to give\na boost to the private participation in rental housing as a business model for\naddressing the huge shortage in housing sector, the Ministry of Housing said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Act says that a security deposit equal to a maximum of two month\u2019s rent in case of residential premises and maximum of six month\u2019s rent in case of non-residential premises would have to be paid by the tenants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
T<\/strong>he key features of<\/strong> Model Tenancy Act<\/strong>:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n- It will balance\nthe interest and rights of both the owner and tenant in an accountable and\ntransparent manner.<\/li>
- It will encourage\nthe growth of rental housing.<\/li>
- The Model Tenancy\nAct will provide a template for residential and commercial properties and model\nfor urban and rural properties.<\/li>
- It would take\npeople from informal to specific contract arrangements between landlord and\ntenant.<\/li>
- In case of\ndispute between landlord and tenant, a rent authority or a rent court or\nTribunal would be available for speedy resolution.<\/li>
- Tenant will have\nto pay a security deposit of two month\u2019s rent for residential and six month\u2019s\nrent for commercial property.<\/li>
- The tenant will not\nbe able to sublet a part of or the whole property.<\/li>
- If a landlord has\nfulfilled all the conditions stated in the rent agreement like giving notice\nperiod as per the defined time frames and the tenant fails to vacate the\npremises after the expiry of tenancy or termination of tenancy, landlord is\nentitled to double the monthly rent for two months and four times after that.<\/li>
- Landlord has to\ngive a notice in writing three months before revising the prevailing or\nexisting rent. The landlord cannot hike the rent in the middle of the tenancy\nperiod.<\/li>
- Landlord cannot\ncut the power and water supply in case of a dispute with the tenant.<\/li>
- Landlord need to\ngive 24-hour prior notice to carry out repairs or replacement in the tenants\npremises.<\/li>
- Landlord will be\nresponsible for repair of structural damages and to undertake timely measures\nlike whitewashing walls and painting doors and windows.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
While the proposals of the Model Tenancy Act have\nbeen widely welcomed, implementation may not be that very simple. Like in the\ncase with RERA, the fear is that states may choose not to follow guidelines,\ndiluting the essence of the Model Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Model Tenancy Act<\/a> viz-a-viz RERA<\/a> may well become a process rather than an event and need to amend with time to reduce weaknesses before it becomes a force to work out with. The welfare objective of the existing tenancy laws, which are adequate in providing tenant protection, appears to be fading away when we have instances of tenants occupying the prime premises for meager rents. <\/p>\n\n\n\n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government had first released the draft of the Model Tenancy Act in 2019. Two years after announcing the draft Act, Union Cabinet finally approved the Model Tenancy Act with a focus on boosting rental housing and reducing litigation. The Act will boost rental housing and reduce litigations. The Act fixes limits for security deposits,Read more about MODEL TENANCY ACT – SECURITY DEPOSIT TO RENT HIKE, ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=402"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":406,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402\/revisions\/406"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}