INTRODUCTION
In a nation where pets are not considered just animals, but precious family members, a recurring and ever-present question seems to bother most tenants: “Do I have the right to keep a pet in a rented residence?” The legislation governing the keeping of pets in rented residences in India is somewhat ambiguous and is often misinterpreted by both landlords and tenants. Landlords tend to impose restrictions on their tenants with respect to keeping pets, usually justifying the same due to fear of damage to the property, noise pollution that may be generated, or maintenance problems that they feel will be increased by the presence of pets. One would have to question whether Indian legislation gives them the right to impose such restrictions.
IS IT WITHIN THE LANDLORD’S LEGAL RIGHT TO EXCLUDE PETS FROM THE PROPERTY?
Much to everyone’s surprise, it is interesting to note that there is no single, specific central law that exists in India prohibiting tenants from having pets in their rented homes. There are a number of legal provisions and court judgments that help safeguard the interests of people who want to keep pets in their homes.
The model rent control legislation and the state statutes on rent control barely refer to pets and how they are to be controlled on leased property. Yet, this does not mean that the tenants have no rights in such cases.
- The Fundamental Rights that are enshrined in the framework of the Indian Constitution
Right to Life, as defined in the context of Article 21[1] of the Constitution, has been interpreted and understood much beyond mere existence or living; it has now begun to take on the basic right to live with dignity and respect. This dignity is not only reserved for human beings but also for our lives and the treatment of animals.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagarajan and Others[2], a landmark case in the year 2014.
The Supreme Court arrived at the historic conclusion that animals are living creatures and can experience emotions and sentiments and, therefore, are entitled to be treated with maximum compassion and dignity. In its ruling, the Court recognised five internationally recognised freedoms to which animals are entitled and which are as follows: the freedom from hunger and thirst, the freedom from physical pain and distress, the freedom from pain, fear, and distress, and the freedom to display normal behaviour characteristic of their kind.
Even though this specific case did not involve rented homes, it still sets forth the important fact that having pets is a natural outgrowth of someone’s freedom and liberty.
- Bye-laws of Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs)
Often, RWAs or housing societies put up notices stating “No Pets Allowed”. However, such rules are not above the law.
AWBI GUIDELINES 2015):
The official publication of the Animal Welfare Board of India has laid down a detailed set of guidelines specifically defining the following:
Societies of dwelling cannot ban pets by their bylaws.
– Resident Welfare Associations, or RWAs, do not have any authority to penalise people for keeping pets.
– Barking cannot be a good reason for which a pet ban should be imposed; it is a natural and inherent mode of communication that they use.
– Owners are required to vaccinate and clean up after their pets.
Therefore, if your landlord or housing society informs you that pets are not permitted, one must understand that such a stipulation has no legal enforceability unless it is possible to substantiate that the presence of pets is creating a proven nuisance or is constituting a health hazard to others.
Indian Contract Act 1872 concerning Rental Agreements[3]
Though it is the landlord and the tenant who enter into an agreement of lease, it comes under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The agreement of lease is enforceable when the parties mutually agree upon it.
But if there is a particular clause in the agreement that explicitly says “No Pets Allowed,” then someone would be inclined to ask if that particular clause can be enforced practically.
Legally, such a term may be deemed arbitrary or unreasonable in its application if it violates public policy or basic rights. This is especially so when the term is not backed or justified by any existing laws.
Key Point: Even if a rental agreement says no pets, the term can be disputed as being unfair or against AWBI codes and Article 21.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960[4]
Section 11 of this specific Act is the section that provides the punishments for acts of cruelty to animals. It should be noted that forcing a person to relinquish their favourite pet due to rental issues or harassing them because they wish to maintain a pet can indeed constitute a case of indirect cruelty, especially if the acts are unfounded in law.
Essentially, the law recognises pets as living beings that must be protected and taken care of, and this indirectly confirms the rights of tenants to keep and have them as part of their household.
JUDICIAL VIEW OF OWNERSHIP OF PETS IN PRIVATE PROPERTIES
- KANNAN v. THE SECRETARY OF THE VGN MINERVA APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION[5], a 2020 decision case.
In this landmark case, which had been initiated before the Madras High Court, the apartment complex tried to ban dogs from using the lifts in the complex. The Court, after considering the issue, ruled that such a ban is indeed arbitrary and that dogs cannot be discriminated against at any stage. Further, it specifically articulated that pet owners have the natural right to use all common facilities in the community.
NANDITA KRISHNA VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU[6]
In this specific case, it was emphatically pointed out that human beings have an inherent right to feed stray animals and domestic pets within their homes. Additionally, it should be understood that city officials cannot threaten or harass those people who are merely being kind and humane to such suffering animals.
Landlord vs Tenant: The Grey Area
Although legal doctrine does offer some basis for the notion of pet ownership, it is to be noted that landlords still retain the right to determine some terms and conditions in the private contracts in this regard. This right to impose conditions, however, is limited to where such conditions do not offend constitutional rights or contravene existing animal welfare acts.
Scenario Example:
If a renter has a vicious dog that injures people or property, the landlord has the right to respond. But this must not be done because of dislike or inconvenience to the landlord.
Is it possible for a landlord to evict a tenant for keeping pets?
Technically, no, unless
– Within the rental agreement, there exists a distinctly outlined clause that is explicitly stated.
– The animal inflicts a serious nuisance or damage on other residents.
– There has been a breach of the health or safety standards set to safeguard people.
Yet, it is to be noted that even in such a situation, the eviction must comply with the established legal procedure that exists. Moreover, a tenant is also eligible to ask for a review of the eviction in a civil court based on principles of animal rights and constitutional protection.
CONCLUSION
While the question of whether tenants in India can legally keep pets in rented accommodation seems to exist in a grey zone, a closer look at the Constitution, welfare laws, and judicial pronouncements reveals a clear trend: animal companionship is a dignified and protected interest. Although landlords and housing societies may have practical concerns, such as property maintenance or noise complaints, blanket bans on pets are not legally tenable unless they are backed by proven evidence of nuisance or hazard.
Indian law increasingly recognises the humane treatment of animals and the emotional well-being of pet owners. The judiciary and statutory bodies like the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI)[7] have strongly upheld the idea that pets are part of the family, and their exclusion from residential life cannot be based merely on arbitrary or aesthetic grounds.
Thus, while landlords may still incorporate pet-related clauses in lease agreements, such conditions are not above constitutional scrutiny or public policy considerations. The ideal approach is a balanced one, promoting harmony between pet-keeping tenants, landlords, and other residents, while ensuring that animal welfare and tenants’ dignity are protected.
Author(s) Name: Akshita Agarwal (IILM University)
References:
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[2] Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja and Others (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[3] Indian Contract Act 1872.
[4] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, s 11.
[5] S Kannan v The Secretary, VGN Minerva Apartment Owners Association (2020) Writ Petition No. 21263/2020 (Madras HC).
[6] Nandita Krishna v State of Tamil Nadu (2010) Writ Petition No. 20790/2010 (Madras HC).
[7]AWBI (n 4)
