RTI filed for tenant’s deal with who vacated with out paying hire, however…

When an individual rents a property to a tenant, an settlement is signed between the 2, which states the phrases and circumstances underneath which the property is being leased.

If a tenant refuses or fails to pay the month-to-month hire, the owner can strategy the court docket in search of the tenant’s eviction from the home. These property disputes are fairly widespread, and several other such circumstances are delivered to court docket.

Nevertheless, what occurs if the tenant vacates the property with out paying the due hire to the owner?

Do you suppose there’s a approach the owner can know the present deal with of the tenant and recuperate the unpaid quantity?

A latest ruling by the Central Info Fee (CIC) has shed some mild on the query.

In a dispute, a landlord named V Venkatapathy sought details about the brand new deal with of a tenant who bought away with out paying the hire.

The proprietor of the property filed a Proper to Info (RTI) utility earlier than the Central Public Info Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance coverage Company of India (LIC), Tamil Nadu, in a bid to get particulars in regards to the tenant’s residential deal with, reported The Financial Express.

The owner claimed that the tenant, who works as a LIC Star Agent, vacated the property with out informing him and didn’t settle the dues.

Nevertheless, the report added that the CPIO rejected the proprietor’s utility citing Part 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005.

Based on Part 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, the “info which pertains to private info the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public exercise or curiosity, or which might trigger unwarranted invasion of the privateness of the person until the Central Public Info Officer or the State Public Info Officer or the appellate authority, because the case could also be, is glad that the bigger public curiosity justifies the disclosure of such info.”

The owner then approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and filed one other plea on November 23, 2020. However the FAA, too, dismissed the attraction and upheld CPIO’s order.

Following this, the proprietor filed a second attraction earlier than the CIC, stating that the data sought was not offered to him, based on the report.

In its order dated October 3, 2022, the CIC stated that for the reason that dispute is concerning non-payment of hire, the grievance can’t be resolved underneath the RTI Act.

The CIC upheld the CPIO’s ruling and said that the small print in regards to the tenant’s residential deal with couldn’t be disclosed because it comes underneath their private info.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here