That strong argument in favour of amending the obsolete Rent Act to at least such an extent that it denied protection to cash-rich corporations and commercial establishments under the act was made just a couple of weeks ago by none other than Minister of State for Housing Raj Purohit.

Yet, on Thursday, April 1 -- the deadline for putting in place a new full and comprehensive Rent Act for the state as per the Supreme Court judgment -- it was the old outdated Rent Act that was extended for another year with no changes.

The agony of waiting for the new Act would not have been so acute if Purohit had not flattered everybody and raised hopes only to deceive a week later. The state government successfully pushed a progressiveordinance to replace the Act (once it lapsed on March 31, 1999). The draft ordinance, the boldest initiative by any government on the vexed issue till date, incorporated such crucial clauses as exempting multinational corporations, banks, cash-rich corporations and commercial establishments with a paid-up capital of Rs 1 crore or more from the purview of the Rent Act. Since no government would have, especially in an election year, dared to increase rent across the board, the distinction the draft ordinance sought to draw between prosperous business houses and the ordinary individual tenant was seen as a welcome improvisation to take the act forward.

But even after the state cabinet cleared the draft and the Centre, after raising some objections regarding legalisation of pagree reportedly okayed it, the state government for some inexplicable reasons sat on the ordinance. Instead, it extended the old act for the second year running till March 31, 2000. According to leading tenant activist Mohan Gurnani, thegovernment needs to fine-tune its act for a speedy solution. ``The failure to promulgate a good ordinance amending the rent act is only weakening the state's case in Supreme Court. The state must now introduce a draft bill for a new act during the ongoing budget session itself and put an end to this ambiguity.'' He added it is time to read the writing on the wall and accept a five per cent increase in rents.

Yet other tenant activists felt exemptions had become necessary as the Court needed to be shown that the state was indeed allowing landlords to benefit, as any other substantial hike in rent on other largely low and middle class tenants would result in largescale dislocation.

The legalisation of pugree by scrapping the sections pertaining to it in the Act is seen as a major boost in favour of tenants, specially in convincing the court that a huge rental hike is unnecessary. The amendment also hit the nail on the fact that pugree was the accepted informal norm of creating and transferring tenanciesover the years through which landlords have benefitted substantially.

The ordinance, by excluding new hitherto untenanted buildings built after October 1987 from the Rent Act would have also proved to be the first major step in stoking the rental market. ``The rental market in the city has been completely dead as owners are reluctant to let out flats, not willing to risk losing their premises as they would be governed by the obsolete piece of legislation. What the city needs is opening up of rental housing stock,'' says noted builder Niranjan Hiranandani. He adds, ``We are the only city in the world where one, be it the rich or the poor, has to buy a house to live in even if it is unaffordable.''

The Bombay Rent Act with all its stringent provisions of frozen rents has thus caused complete havoc in the housing scenario and been responsible for the massive proliferation of slums, which are threatening to take over the entire city. So the amendments in the Act by way of an ordinance seemed a welcomeinitiative, which was only shelved unceremoniously.

Is it that the state government is incapable of translating its plans into action and will once again start the game of promises and lies, now that it again has a temporary Act in place? The question is troubling tenants and landlords alike, once again.