To,
Justice Ajit Prakash Shah,
Chairman,
Law Commission of India,
Government of India,
Hindustan Times House,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New
Delhi -110001
08 November, 2014
Ref: Your
letter No. 6(3)211/2011-LC(LS) dated 31 October, 2014 on Report No. 248 “Obsolete Laws: Warranting
Immediate Repeal”
Sir,
Your
aforementioned reply to our letter dated 30.10.2014 which pointed out that the
Commission has made a Himalayan blunder by including Delhi Rent Act, 1995 in the
list of archaic laws was pathetic to say the least.
You
may like to read your own report again very carefully in which Delhi Rent Act,
1995 appears both in Appendix I and Appendix V (at item 250). Appendix V of
your report – in case you do not know – contains LIST OF STATUTES FOR
FURTHER STUDY WITH A VIEW TO ASSESS SUITABILITY FOR REPEAL. Apparently
you do not read your own reports “carefully”.
Still as you failed to understand the import of our
earlier short letter we are compelled to explain the point in detail and hope
that you will not try to hide behind technicalities and this time around understand
the true nature of the blunder made by you. The question that arises is that
when the mandate of the Commission is “Identification of Obsolete Laws” why should
Delhi Rent Act, 1995 figure in any list prepared by the Commission and not the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) which is a regressive law. The
Commission by including Delhi Rent Act, 1995
in Appendix V is setting back the whole process of
reform in rent control laws by decades. More than 32 years ago the
Economic Administration Reforms Commission set up under the chairmanship of
Shri L.K. Jha in its Report No. 11 presented to the Government in September
1982 pointed out the shortcomings of rent control laws. Jain Commission on Administrative Reforms in its “Report
of the Commission on Review of Administrative Laws’ (September 1998) observed
that Rent Control Act negatively impacts on housing supply, investment flow in
the housing and increases the housing price. The Commission recommended revised
legal framework for Rent Control in Delhi should be finalised and implemented
early and suggested starting with action to pass the amending Act for Delhi.
Further, we would like to quote Para 1.6 of your
Report No. 248:
“In the
course of the Commission’s research, unpublished work by the 100 Laws Repeal
Project, a citizens’ coalition initiative comprising Centre for Civil Society,
Macro finance Group of NIPFP, amongst others was brought to our notice,
together with several scholarly pieces and newspaper articles on this issue.
The Commission would like to acknowledge these contributions which benefited
its Report.”
May we with all due respect point out that one of the
laws recommended for repeal by the Centre for Civil Society in its 100 Laws
Repeal Project is Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and not Delhi Rent Act, 1995!
It
may be pointed out that the very fact that Parliament thought it fit to repeal
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and replace it by Delhi Rent Act, 1995 shows
that the 1958 Act has fulfilled its purpose and has become archaic and
redundant. In the debate held in Lok Sabha on 01.06.1995 during the passage and
adoption of Delhi Rent Bill, 1994, an Hon’ble member of Lok Sabha Shri
Sriballav Panigrahi had referred to the DRC Act as an ‘outdated’ Act. Both the
print and electronic media have been referring to the DRC Act as archaic Act. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) vs. Union of India [95 (2002) DLT
508], had quashed Sections 4,6 and 9
of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 as being offensive to Article 14, 19(1)(g)
and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench held that the
provisions were archaic. They contain no mechanism to compensate the landlords
to offset inflation. Thus the term archaic in relation to Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 has been used by the national press, parliament and the judiciary.
Sir,
we can give the Commission a reasoning but not an understanding. We do hope
that beyond getting media coverage the Commission would also try to rectify its
mistakes. If the Commission is not hand in gloves with the powers that be and
the rich tenant-trader lobby of Delhi you would – without any delay – publicly
acknowledge the blunder and remove the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 from Appendix V and
recommend immediate repeal of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
We
again request for an appointment to clear any further misunderstanding that you
may have.
Thanks.
Yours
sincerely,
(Dr.
Paramjit Singh)
Secretary,
PIL Watch Group
