MUMBAI: The Mumbai Police have ramped up efforts to take action against property owners who neglect to provide tenant information to law enforcement agencies. This initiative has resulted in multiple first information reports (FIRs) being lodged at various police stations across the city, showcasing a zero-tolerance stance on what authorities classify as a critical breach of public safety protocols.
The warning is clear: Landlords in Mumbai who fail to comply with reporting regulations face severe legal repercussions, potentially including imprisonment.
In recent days, six FIRs have already been filed against property owners in areas such as Shivaji Park, Dadar, and Goregaon. These cases, brought under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, reflect the police’s resolve to enforce tenant verification standards.
The authorities underscore that reporting tenant details is more than a bureaucratic formality; it is essential for preventing illegal activities. The police assert that unregistered tenants can create significant security threats, complicating the tracking of individuals involved in criminal activities or who might misuse rental properties for unlawful purposes.
According to government rules and directives from the Mumbai Police, all property owners are required to report tenant information. This can be done at the local police station, through the citizen portal, or via the official website: www.mumbaipolice.gov.in/tenanatform. Despite these explicit guidelines, many landlords have overlooked this crucial requirement, prompting the recent legal actions. Additionally, some property owners have even omitted formal rental agreements, exacerbating the situation and leaving both landlords and tenants at risk.
Those facing legal action are protesting, claiming that filing an FIR for such oversights is disproportionately severe.
“An FIR is a serious matter, and it can substantially impact someone’s life,” remarked a property owner who chose to remain anonymous.
Many believe that a warning or a monetary penalty would be a more reasonable approach rather than initiating life-altering criminal proceedings.
Nevertheless, the police are maintaining their stance, emphasizing the necessity of public order and safety. Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pertains to “disobedience to orders duly promulgated by public servants.” It states that any individual aware of a lawful order from a public servant directing them to avoid certain actions or manage property in specific ways will face legal consequences for disobedience.
Details of FIRs (Mumbai Mirror is protecting the identities of the landlords)
**Shivaji Park:** FIR filed for renting a shop on NC Kelkar Road, Dadar West, without a rental agreement or notifying the police of the tenant.
**Shivaji Park:** Another case involves a landlord who rented a room on Balgovinddas Road, Dadar West, without a formal agreement or police notification.
**Dadar:** A landlady faces accusations for leasing a room on Kakasaheb Gadgil Marg, Dadar West, without a rental agreement or informing the authorities.
**Dadar:** Another landlord is charged with renting a room on Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar West, lacking proper documentation and police notification.
**Aarey Sub Police Station:** A landlady has been booked for renting her property at Royal Palms, Aarey Colony, Goregaon, without informing the police or executing a rental agreement.
**Aarey Sub Police Station:** An FIR is filed against a landlord for renting out his unit in Aarey Colony, Goregaon East, without a rental agreement and failing to provide tenant details to the police.
Penalties Under BNS Section 223
**Minor Consequences:** If the disobedience causes annoyance or harm to any lawfully employed individual, the offender may face simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine up to Rs 2,500, or both.
**Severe Consequences:** If the disobedience endangers life, health, or safety, the offender may face imprisonment for up to one year, a fine up to Rs 5,000, or both.
It is important to understand that under this section, it is not necessary for the offender to intend to cause harm; simply being aware of the lawful order they are disobeying suffices for legal consequences. This broad interpretation means ignorance of the law or lack of malicious intent does not serve as a valid defense.
Landlords Speak
“I acknowledge a mistake was made. However, I am dealing with serious family issues. My 91-year-old father suffers from memory loss and kidney failure, and my mother is over 80. The tenants I rented to are responsible individuals. For the past several months, I’ve been juggling my job and my parents’ health crises. While I believe the police are justified in their actions, I genuinely faced challenges that prevented me from securing a rental agreement. I believe a seven-day notice would have been reasonable for formalizing the agreement.”
“I do not oppose police actions, but filing an FIR seems excessively harsh. I was on the verge of signing the agreement when this occurred.”
Pallavi Kothari, Advocate, Bombay High Court
“The police verification process is essential for ensuring safety for landlords and communities alike. It allows authorities to maintain records of temporary residents, aiding in local surveillance and promoting community safety. If a tenant defaults on rent or damages property and then disappears, this data helps trace them, thereby offering legal protection to landlords. However, this process faces hurdles since not all regions have a clear system or online portals. In certain areas, tenants may need to personally visit police stations for verification, making it inconvenient. Though police verification provides benefits such as criminal background checks, it raises privacy concerns and is not always indicative of tenant behavior. Bureaucratic inefficiencies or minor harassment from authorities can also complicate things, potentially making tenants uncomfortable with the scrutiny. Despite its challenges, police verification remains a requirement in many cities.
