Increasing rent throughout the year, especially at the onset of a new year, has been a tried and true tradition among landlords in Bangladesh. With a new year knocking at the door, tenants are expectedly wary. Similarly, having to pay a month’s rent in advance to landlords is an equally egregious practice.
In this regard, do the specific reasons usually cited for increasing rent have any legal grounds? After all, neither the average landlord nor the average tenant are exactly well versed in the legal proceedings of their arrangements.
What does the law say about controlling the per calendar month rent and advance payments?
With regards to the per calendar month rent, the Premises Rent Control Act 1991 prescribes two logics for rent escalation -- section 8 of the act suggests that the rent increase is subject to the landlords' improvements and supply of furnishing, while section 9 proposes that, in addition to the standard rent, the amount of the payment of taxes is payable by the tenant to the landlord only if it is agreed between the two parties. Any increase of rent is, thus, possible.
Apart from these two legal provisions, the landlord cannot increase the rent of the premises. By contrast, if they do so, it will be regarded as unfair, in direct violation of the law.
Following this, this legislation also stresses a penalty provision under section 23(c): "Without the written consent of the Controller, if somebody receives any sum as rent in advance in excess of one month's rent" they would be made subject to this legal provision. Clearly, the landlord or the authorized person can take the advancement of the rent for one month without the intervention of the controller. Beyond one month any form of advance rent must be approved by the controller in a proper manner as prescribed by the law.
Does the law offer any help to tenants?
Given the lack of awareness when it comes to these laws, most tenants have no option but to agree with whatever conditions their landlords set. For this reason, even if landlords have not made their contractual renovations, tenants are still bound to pay the increased rent, which does not comply with section 8 of the abovementioned act.
Furthermore, upon evaluation, section 9 of act stresses the word "agreement" between the two parties in order to claim the increased rent as a means of paying taxes by the tenant. So, it could be argued that, if there is no agreement between the tenant and the landlord, the tenant shall not be liable to pay the tax fees, so their rent is not supposed to be increased.
Although under section 23(c) there is a penalty provision regarding any advance rent beyond one month, in practice, tenants are not likely to benefit from this provision since it lacks enforcement. Thus, it could be argued that, upon knowing the provisions of this legislation, it could not be guaranteed that the situation would change dramatically. However, tenants would still be able to exercise their tenancy rights.
It is clear that increasing awareness of rent laws alone would not be sufficient. In practice, due to numerous adverse situations, tenants are all but forced to agree with the unfair terms and conditions of the landlords, which leads to a vicious cycle of landlords carrying on with less-than-legal rent increases. What we need is the prompt enforcement of the existing laws
Tenants may not be able to exercise their rights if the parties do not make a contract, preferably in writing, which incorporates any price increases and the rent advance clause beforehand. This is the only way to make sure that both tenants and landlords are both on the same page.
Shahriar Bin Wares is an Alumnus of the School of Law, University of Glasgow.