Laws and Legal Rights- Apartment Dog Owners

 

The practice of owning a pet is prevalent in our society since ages, but in recent times the trend of owning a pet in India has increased rapidly, especially owning a pet dog. The love for pets among the citizens seems to be growing tremendously. Almost every household is seen to own a pet in today’s date. With the growing trend of owning pets, there seem to be a rise in disputes among residents staying in the same apartment or building as that of a pet owner. There have been occasions when the Apartments and society associations form their own rules in respect to owning a pet in an Apartment which have led to several disputes which had to be ultimately taken to the Consumer Forum of the concerned State to be resolved.

One such case had been taken up by the Thane District Additional Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Mumbai where one Ajay Madhusudan Marathe (Complainant) had filed a complaint against New Sarvodaya Co. Housing Society Ltd. in the year 2008. The case of the Complainant was that the Housing society disallowed the use of the society’s life for the movement of his pet dog “Shimu” as it may result in the spread of diseases. The Complainant opposed this vehemently stating that the dog was 11 years old and was suffering with osteoarthritis, hence it was very difficult for him to use the stair case. Moreover, the Complainant also obtained a certificate from the Bombay Veterinary College as suggested by the society which clearly exhibited that the dog had no infectious or contagious diseases. Yet, the society continued with its stand of not allowing the dog to use the lift.

Thereafter the Complainant filed a consumer case praying that the forum may pass an order allowing the dog to use the society’s lift and also seeking compensation.

The forum, after considering the age of the dog and his condition of osteoarthritis and taking into consideration the certificate obtained from the Bombay veterinary college observed that the dog was very old and was not suffering from any contagious disease and thus there is no possibility of anybody else being affected. The dog also had a valid license and was registered with Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

Therefore, the Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service on part of the society for preventing the complainant from using the lift for the movement of dog without any justifiable reason. The Forum thereby directed the Society to allow the Complainant to use the life for the movement of his dog and also provided compensation for causing great inconvenience and mental agony to the family of the Complainant.

In 2015, the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory body, issued certain Guidelines for Residents’ Welfare Association, Apartment Owners’ Association etc., with respect to Pet dogs and Pet owning residents.

        

They are produced as under:

Banning Pets:

 

1. The Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations cannot legally introduce any sort of “ban” on the keeping of pet dogs even if the majority of the residents and occupiers vote for it.
2. The Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations cannot insist that “small sized” dogs are acceptable and “large sized” dogs are not.
3. The Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations cannot cite dog barking as a valid and compelling reason for any proposed ban or restriction.
4. If the residents or owners having pets are not violating any municipal or other laws then it is not permissible for the Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations to object to their having pets as companions. Even by a vote of majority the general body cannot frame any bye-laws or create any variance with the laws of the country as it shall amount to illegality.
5. By trying to ban pets or limit their number, the Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations is interfering with a fundamental freedom guaranteed to the citizens of India, i.e. the freedom to choose the life they wish to live, which includes the wish to live with or without companion animals.

Use of lifts by pets:

 

1. The Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations cannot disallow pets from the use of lifts and no charges can be imposed by them either.
2. However, pet owners are advised not object to the use of “alternate” lifts if there is more than one working lift or elevator in the building, which is conveniently accessible.

 

Use of parks by pets:

 

In 2016, another notification was issued by the Animal Welfare Board in regards to allowing pet dogs in public parks which stated that:

 

1. The entry of pet dogs in parks and their being exercised in them will not be banned if the dogs are duly leashed and are being walked by adults. As such all current boards which say “Dogs/ pets are strictly prohibited in the park” or other similar boards are therefore to be removed.
2. Timings maybe specified, for the morning and evening hours, when dog owners can walk their dogs in the parks which shall be reasonable and reasonably long to allow all dog owning residents to walk their dogs.
3. Pet owners must leash their dog with a leash no longer than 6 feet in length, but the authorities in-charge of the park cannot insist on muzzels. However, dog owners may voluntarily muzzle their dog for additional safeguard.
4. The park in-charge may state on the board that all the dog owners must bring scoops and pick up the excreta of their dog and deposit it in a garbage provided for that purpose.

 

 Use of leashes or muzzels by pet owners:

 

1. Pet owners are advised to and must leash their pets in all common areas. However, Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations cannot insist on the use of muzzels. Also, the law provides penalties for negligent pet owners, which the aggrieved party can avail.

 

Defecation by pets in community premises, imposition of fines and other measures:

 

1. In the absence of any laws regarding the cleaning of pet excreta by pet owners, the Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations cannot impose any rule, regulation or bye-law in its respect or impose any special fine on the pet owners because there is no mandate in law for the same. They may, however, request them to clean the same.
2. The pet owners are advised by the Board to “scoop the poop” or together with Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations and other residents, experiment with creation of pet defecation areas with community premises or arrive at suitable solutions through consensus to maintain peaceful community living.

 

Intimidation:

 

1. If any association succeeds in intimidating a pet owner into ‘giving up’ or ‘abandoning’ a pet, it will have abetted violation of law and intimidation is an offense in law.

 

To conclude, the Animal Welfare Board has rightly stated as follows: “Our country endorses the virtues of ahimsa and non-violence and these doctrines have always enable people to peacefully co-exist with animals. Moreover, the duty to show compassion to all living creatures is a fundamental duty cast by Article 51A(g) of the Constitution upon all citizens of this country; and the law of the land protects the rights of non-humans.”

 

REFERENCES:

 

1. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. New Sarvodaya Co. Housing Society Ltd.

 

2. Guidelines by Animal Welfare Board of India with respect to pet and street dogs and their care-givers and Residents’ Welfare Associations and Apartment Owners’ Associations dated 26^th February, 2015.

 

3. Guidelines by Animal Welfare Board of India for allowing pet dogs in public parks dated 15^th November, 2016.