Dhaka North City Corporation’s (DNCC) newly issued house rent guidelines, framed as a measure to protect tenants’ rights, are drawing sharp criticism for potentially doing the opposite – benefiting homeowners while exposing tenants to higher financial pressure.
Prepared in line with the House Rent Control Act, 1991, the guidelines state that house rent cannot be increased within two years under any circumstances and that the annual rent must not exceed 15 per cent of the market value of the property. While the provisions appear tenant-friendly on the surface, tenants, legal experts and rights activists argue that their practical implications could sharply push up rents across the capital.
How the formula works and why tenants fear it
Under the guidelines, a homeowner can reassess the market value of a house or flat every two years. Based on that valuation, rent can be set at up to 15 per cent annually.
In practical terms, if a flat’s market value is Tk 1 crore, its permissible annual rent would be Tk 15 lakh, translating into a monthly rent of Tk 1.25 lakh. If the property’s market value rises after two years, the rent can be revised upward accordingly.
Tenant groups argue that this formula legalises steep rent hikes under the guise of regulation, especially in a city where property prices have surged far beyond the income growth of residents.
Legal questions over the rent law itself
Supreme Court lawyer, human rights activist and environmentalist Manzil Morshed has questioned the very foundation of the DNCC guidelines.
“The City Corporation is issuing guidelines based on the House Rent Control Act, 1991, but that law itself is under legal challenge,” he told Jago News. “We have filed a writ seeking its cancellation. The hearing had to restart after the judge passed away. In this context, issuing guidelines based on an unimplemented and disputed law is unnecessary and misleading.”
He added that the rent law has never been properly enforced, lacks implementing rules, and has no appointed rent regulators – making its selective application problematic.
Tenants say fear, not relief, has increased
For tenants, the guidelines have created fresh uncertainty rather than relief. Many fear that landlords will selectively interpret the provisions to justify sharp rent increases.
Mohsin Ali, a private bank employee living in Aftabnagar, pays Tk 25,000 in monthly rent for a modest flat, along with an additional Tk 5,000 in service charges.
“The market value of the flat I live in is around Tk 1 crore,” he said. “According to the DNCC formula, the rent should be Tk 1.25 lakh a month. If this logic is applied and revised every two years, survival for low- and middle-income people in Dhaka will become impossible.”
Urban housing studies suggest that spending 30 per cent of income on housing is considered sustainable. In Dhaka, however, tenants often spend 50 to 65 per cent of their income on rent.
What the guidelines say
DNCC released the 16-point house rent guidelines on January 20, aiming to ease rent pressure in the capital. Key provisions include:
Guideline 8: Rent cannot be increased before two years under any circumstances. After that, it may be revised through standard calculation or bilateral negotiation.
Guideline 11: Annual rent must not exceed 15 per cent of the market value of the house.
At a press conference at Nagar Bhaban, DNCC Administrator Mohammad Ejaz said the 15 per cent cap was included strictly in line with the Rent Control Act.
“There is no scope to go beyond the existing law,” he said, adding that property valuation would consider factors such as location, fittings and size. “Landlords and tenants can still negotiate the final rent.”
Where the problem lies
Critics argue the problem is not the guideline itself, but the absence of enforcement mechanisms.
Section 15 of the Rent Control Act empowers a rent regulator to determine standard rent upon application by either party. But in reality:
No regulators have been appointed.
No valuation rules exist.
The law has rarely been used in practice.
As a result, rent determination has remained market-driven, often favouring landlords.
Public reaction on DNCC’s verified Facebook page reflected these concerns. One user commented:
“Earlier, rent increased by Tk 500 after three years. Now it could rise by Tk 3,000 after two years for a Tk 20,000 flat.”
Another questioned the basis of the 15 per cent threshold, suggesting it should be 5–10 per cent depending on the area.
DNCC promises review
DNCC Chief Revenue Officer Muhammad Habibul Alam, who drafted the guidelines, acknowledged the concerns.
“If landlords strictly follow the 15 per cent formula, they won’t get tenants,” he said. “That’s why rent will ultimately have to be fixed through negotiation.”
He added that DNCC plans to write to the ministry seeking amendments to the contentious provision of the Rent Control Act.
A long-running legal battle
The issue of rent control has been before the courts for more than a decade. In 2010, Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh filed a writ demanding the enforcement of rent control laws.
In 2015, the High Court directed the government to form a high-powered commission to determine minimum and maximum rent and to appoint ward-level rent regulators, particularly in Dhaka.
However, progress stalled after the death of Justice Bazlur Rahman. In 2019, Section 15 of the Rent Control Act was formally challenged. The case is still pending.
“According to the DNCC guideline, a flat currently rented at Tk 30,000 could legally be priced at Tk 1 lakh,” said Manzil Morshed. “This cannot be called a guideline. The Rent Control Act itself is a wild law.”
The bigger picture
With around 3.5 crore people living in Dhaka and only 25 lakh housing units across the two city corporations, rental housing dominates the city’s landscape. Rural-urban migration, administrative centralisation and limited housing supply continue to drive rents upward.
Unless backed by legal clarity, enforcement capacity and realistic caps tied to income levels, critics warn that DNCC’s guidelines may formalise inequality rather than fix it – leaving tenants with fewer protections than before.