Your landlord just raised your rent. Do you have any legal recourse?

Increasing the rent of the houses throughout the year, especially at the commencement of a new year, has been a common phenomenon among landlords or legal owners of houses in Bangladesh. 

Since the new year is knocking at the door, this has become a concern for the tenants. Apart from the new year thing, the landlords also tend to increase the rent in the excuse of the price hike of daily necessities. 

In this regard, a question arises regarding whether these reasonings could amount to a lawful excuse to raise rent. Similarly, the advance payment of rent for more than a month by the prospective tenants to the landlords has become another burden for them. Arguably, the landlord and the tenant hardly know about the laws that supervise the rent of the premises. 

What does the law say 

To begin with, about the per calendar month rent, the Premises Rent Control Act 1991 prescribes two logic for the rent escalation. Firstly, section 8 of this Act suggests that the rent increase is subject to the landlords' improvements and supply of furniture. 

Besides, section 9 of this Act also proposes that in addition to the standard rent, the tax is payable by the tenant to the landlord only if it is agreed between the two parties. The escalation of rent is possible this way.

It is evident that 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. Subsequently, it will result in the violation of this legislation.

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 subject to this legal provision. 

Clearly, the landlord or the authorised person can take the advance rent for only one month without the intervention of the controller. 

How does the legislation offer a remedy

The affirmation by the tenants of unfair and advantageous positions held by the landlords suggests that most of the tenants are unaware of this legislation. As a result, even if the landlords have not made any renovations, the tenants are bound to pay the increased rent, which does not comply with section 8 of this Act. 

In this regard, critics might argue that despite the awareness, the landlords are very much reluctant to comply with the legal provisions. So, the awareness of this legislation is insignificant. 

However, the aim of this legislation is to balance the interests of both parties equitably where none of them should take an advantageous position. 

Furthermore, upon evaluation, section 9 of this 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. 

Moreover, although under section 23(c), there is a penalty provision regarding the advance rent beyond one month, in practice, the tenants are not likely to benefit from this provision since it lacks enforcement. 

In practice, due to the adverse situations, the tenants agree with the unfair terms and conditions of the landlords. Besides, the tenants may not be able to exercise their rights if the parties do not make a contract, in writing (preferably), incorporating the rent escalation and the advance rent clause before the commencement of the tenancy period. 

Therefore, signing of tenancy agreements among the tenants and the landlords may be a viable solution in order to claim the tenancy rights.

Shahriar Bin Wares is an Alumnus of the School of Law, University of Glasgow, who can be reached through shahriarbinwares@gmail.com.