The Kathmandu Metropolitan City and local bodies is caught up in a quagmire when it comes to addressing disputes between landlord and tenant.

-Bidhya Rai : Centre for Investigative Journalism-Nepal

• • Despite buying a three-storied house at Lazimpat in Kathmandu three years ago, Meera Giri has not been able to shift to her house. The reason: the tenants, who have been occupying the house before her ownership, did not move out. “They bar me from entering the compound by closing the gate. Tired of this, I filed a complaint at the Kathmandu Metropolitan City to get rid of the tenants.”

• • Shreejana Shrestha rented her room at Ganeshthan, Kathmandu to a person three years ago. The tenant is out of contact for the last one year. Meera has neither received the rent nor has she been able to vacate the room. She filed a complaint at the District Administration Office, Kathmandu seeking action, and to break the padlock. The DAO, however, suggested her to approach the ward office saying that such issue does not come under its jurisdiction. She approached the ward office several times but to no avail. “I approached the ward office, the district administration, police, and the municipality, but to no avail,” Shreejana gasped.

• • Laxmi Prasad Sharma rented a room of his house at Tilganga, Kathmandu some four years ago to a person. The tenant is missing since February 24, 2018, by padlocking the door. “The tenant is missing. His phone is unreachable,” Sharma complained, adding, “I approached the municipality seeking its help to vacate the room. They registered my application on April 26. The municipality gave an initial Tarek of 15 days. However, despite several Tareks, no decision has been made so far.”

Several cases of disputes between landlords and tenants are registered at the Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) on a daily basis. The decisions are, however, delayed. According to Hari Maya Ghimire, legal officer at the legal department of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City, out of 63 such complaints registered from November 26, 2017, to June 5, 2018, only 11 have been decided. Likewise, while the judicial committee is in the process of finalizing six cases, it has already ordered that 13 padlocks be unlocked.

The local level has been entrusted to decide such cases following the formation of the local government. However, for the KMC judicial committee, settling disputes between the landlords and the tenants have been like cracking a hard nut. Ghimire admits that they have not been able to make decisions effectively. “Since there are numerous such cases pending with us, we are facing a tough time to finalize the cases.”

Service seekers at the KMC legal department.

Landlords, however, blame the KMC employees for not being serious when it comes to addressing such issues. “It takes a long time to get the recommendation from the ward office, and to register the case at the judicial committee,” Narayan Bahadur Shrestha of Nayabazar said. “They even do not pay attention to our complaints, and your whole day is wasted for a minor registration,” he complained. A lady, who was at the KMC to get her voices heard, said, “The staffers are not available. We are in a state of confusion about our next step.”

Deputy Mayor at the KMC Hari Prabha Khadgi says, “It is the lengthy formalities that actually delay the entire process. It is the execution part, not the employees’ incompetency that is delaying the process.” Saying that the KMC employees don’t intend to give unnecessary trouble to the people, she added, “One of the reasons behind the delay is that the KMC lacks a reconciliation section.” She said that there is no place for hearings of such cases. The Deputy Mayor’s lounge has been used as a hearing room for the time being. “The judicial committee has repeatedly apprised this to Mayor Bidhya Sundar Shakya. But he is least bothered.”

The District Administration Office used to handle such cases. According to the Article 217 of the Constitution, the deputy mayor heads a three-member judicial committee, which is entrusted to decide cases and complaints according to sub-article 1 and 2 of Article 47 of the Local Government Operation Act 2074. According to the provision, the committee will try to settle the case on the basis of reconciliation. If not possible, the committee will try to settle the case by giving its verdict. For this, the committee can send the original file of the complaints to the district court. However, the KMC has not been able to settle even half of the cases.

Running away from responsibility

Before the formation of the local levels, the police used to break the padlock of the tenants based on the complaints of the house-owner. The police, now, have been skipping from this responsibility saying that such duties do not fall under their jurisdiction. “Police do not get involved in such cases now,” legal officer at the KMC, Ghimire said adding, “There could be complications if drugs, or a dead body, or even weapons are found inside the tenant’s room. Who will be ready to take the responsibility?” Referring to a case in February 2018, she said, “When the judicial committee authorities entered a room by breaking the lock, they found some silver ornaments, utensils, statues, and expensive stuff. The committee then decided to hand over the valuables to the landlord after completing necessary formalities and taking the preliminary report.”

Spokesperson of the Metropolitan Police Circle, Teku, Mohan Thapa said since such responsibility falls under the judicial committee’s jurisdiction, the police cannot interfere in such cases. “The KMC employees and the judicial committee members, and the people’s representatives want us to unlock and vacate the rooms. But the law does not permit us to do so.” KMC, however, fears that they would undergo trouble while breaking the doors of the tenants in the absence of the police.

The judicial committee has given its decision on some cases and complaints on the basis of uncomplicated negotiation and reconciliation. However, the committee sometimes gets confused in some cases, which are complicated.

To cite an example, Dinesh Bahadur Dhaubanja bought a five-storied building, auctioned by a bank, at New Baneswor some two-and-a-half-years through bidding. The family staying in the house had earlier promised to vacate the house at the earliest. However, sometime later, the tenants asked them to allow them to stay in the fourth and fifth floor for a couple of months. However, since the tenants did not vacate the house even after two-and-a-half years, Dinesh then approached the KMC seeking justice. The judicial committee held a discussion with both the sides. The tenants, who were, in fact, the seller of the house, promised to vacate the flats within 35 days and shifted to the ground floor. The new owner then padlocked the fourth and fifth floor.

However, within a day or two, the tenants shifted to the fourth and fifth floors by breaking the padlocks. Dinesh approached the judicial committee to inform about the incident. The seller (tenants), however, filed a complaint at the district court seeking an unhindered stay in the house since the bank had auctioned their house without their consent. The case has been filed in the name of their children citing the right to get the flats as ‘parental property’. The court is yet to give its verdict. Meanwhile, the judicial committee is in a state of confusion about addressing such issues. Legal Office Ghimire says, “We in a dilemma. We have absolutely no idea what we need to do when our decisions are challenged.”

Muddled up process

People from all walks of life reside in Kathmandu. Tenants chose to rent rooms and flats on the basis of verbal agreement with the landlord. The tenants move out of the flat or rooms in case of disputes with the house owner. The house owner, however, cannot compel the tenants to leave the house.

“We are unaware of the tenant’s address or whereabouts,” Nuchhe Shrestha of Chabahil said adding, “In such a situation, I can neither contact him, nor his phone is reachable. I cannot even break the room.” Shrestha said that his tenant was occupying a room as a store. He is now out of contact.

Even as vacating one’s house seems to be easy, it is complicated legally. According to article 47 of the local government operation act 2074, a notice is pasted outside the room or the venue by giving a 15-day notice after the house owner filed complaints at the judicial committee. If the tenant fails to come into contact within the stipulated time, the judicial committee can decide by analyzing and comprehending the circumstances. There is a provision to appeal at the district court within 35 days if the judicial committee’s decision is not satisfactory. Therefore, it takes several months for the house owner to vacate the house. Moreover, both the sides do not appear during the time of the hearing. “This will further delay the process,” Deputy Mayor Khadgi said adding, “We try to settle the issue but the tenants do not turn up.”

The judicial committee has been breaking the padlocks without the presence of the tenants when the latter remain out of contact. The KMC is preparing to formulate a policy that will simplify the process by signing an agreement between the house owner and the tenant in the witness of the ward office and to avoid future complications. “This might take more than a year since we need to coordinate with all ward-offices and other stakeholders,” she added.