What's new

Muslims not allowed - the stereotypes of Mumbai's rental property market

Nothing of this sort is happening in India. Muslims go to their work and go home and pray. All this is in your mind. Rest easy. We are okay.

We also don't rent to Bachelors or all girls or large families, families with pets. It doesn't mean all these groups will start revolting, seeing it as a hate. This muslim discrimination has been happening for long, nothing happened till now, nothing will happen in the future.
Horse crap. You train your house Muslims to be pseudo religious in order to use pseudo religious arguments against any of the following dependent upon precise circumstances: Pakistan, Kashmiri rebels , Sunnis, shias. Delhi incites one group against the other through misalignment of religious doctrine. This is standard practice in fact. The confusion inherent among the religious segments of Indian Muslim society comes to afore whenever Pakistan criticises Indian acts of blatant islamophobia, yet Indian Muslims find themselves using obscure and misinterpreted religious doctrine to condemn the criticism. It's quite pathetic really when Indian Muslims (some, not all I must stress) rally to pay for damages in rightful protests against abuse of their human rights, despite no remedial action being taken re those abuses.
Let's Not start on the Indian "ISIS branch" that has wrought havoc in recent years. Delhi sees Indian Muslims as assets for dirty work and little more.
 
Don't bore me. India had 67 lynching incidents between 2010-2017 (7 years). Majority of incidents happened in rural India. India has over 200 million muslims. More muslims die of lightening strike in India than this. More muslims die of sectarian violence in Pakistan than this. So India is fine. Thank you.

Hindutva ***m like you lynched 53 muslims in delhi alone earlier this year.... here is an article that names each victim...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.thew...delhi-riots-identities-deceased-confirmed/amp

Go peddle your hate filled ideology somewhere else...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't bore me. India had 67 lynching incidents between 2010-2017 (7 years). Majority of incidents happened in rural India. India has over 200 million muslims. More muslims die of lightening strike in India than this. More muslims die of sectarian violence in Pakistan than this. So India is fine. Thank you.

The colonial subjugation of Indian Muslims will result in an intifada as Indian financed roosters will soon flock home.
 
Hindutva ***m like you lynched 53 muslims in delhi alone earlier this year.... here is an article that names each victim...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.thew...delhi-riots-identities-deceased-confirmed/amp

Go peddle your hate filled ideology somewhere else...
Don't quote me if you don't want to listen to my opinion.
The colonial subjugation of Indian Muslims will result in an intifada as Indian financed roosters will soon flock home.
Sure. Don't count your chickens till then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about Indian Laws regarding discriminations, we know under hindutva laws does not matter but just for argument sake.

Housing Discrimination in India, Religion based restrictive covenant that is, an agreement between the property holders to not lease or rent to “people of the Muslim, Christian or other Abrahamic faiths, or even lower-caste Hindus valid or not?
Varun Kumar 25 Oct 2017


1. INTRODUCTION:
In this research paper we will be dealing with the issue of housing discrimination in India. This research paper includes various legal issues and questions of law, such as, whether religion- based restrictive covenant that is, an agreement between the property holders to not lease or rent to “people of the Muslim, Christian or other Abrahamic faiths, or even lower-caste Hindus”, is valid or not? Another aspect is the possibility of the anti-discrimination law. Therefore, a slight balance must be drawn between individual choice and social equality. However, one cannot, for example, implement standards of non-discrimination upon people with respect to choices about their intimate relationships; nor can one ask religious institutions to admit every applicant for membership into their fold, regardless of his or her religion.


2. WHETHER RELIGION BASED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT IS, AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY HOLDERS TO NOT LEASE OR RENT TO “PEOPLE OF THE MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN OR OTHER ABRAHAMIC FAITHS, OR EVEN LOWER-CASTE HINDUS”, IS VALID OR NOT:
An agreement between the property holders containing a religion based restrictive covenant is not valid and against public policy and unconstitutional and against the provisions of The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965. India ratified the Convention in 1968. The Convention has come into force on 4 January 1969. There are wide-ranging limitations on the freedom of contract in India. Article 15(2) of the Constitution prohibits any shop, restaurant, and hotel or entertainment venue from denying access to any citizen on the basis of the protected characteristics. It makes no difference whether the shop or hotel is owned by private parties – it is still bound by Article 15. The Indian Contract Act, more generally, voids contracts that are opposed to public policy.

In Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society v. District Registrar, AIR 2005 SC 2306,
the Supreme Court upheld the by-laws of a Parsi Housing Society that prohibited selling property to non-Parsis. It did so by invoking the Parsis’ fundamental right to the freedom of association, their rights as a minority to preserve their culture, and by refusing to apply constitutional principles to private contractual acts.

In IMA v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 179,
Justice Sudershan Reddy invoked the drafting history to hold that since private schools were service providers, they came within the scope of the word “shops”, and were subject to Article 15(2). If this logic is taken further, then Article 15(2) can become a vital remedy to fight private discrimination across a range of arms-length economic transactions including, potentially, housing covenants and employment contracts.
Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States, have extensive legislation dealing with private discrimination, particularly with housing discrimination.

In Karma Dorjee & Ors V. Union of India and Ors, 2016 SCLT 1722,
the Supreme Court held that, We are of the view that in order to enhance a sense of security and inclusion, the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs should take proactive steps to monitor the redressal of issues pertaining to racial discrimination faced by citizens of the nation drawn from the north-east. For that purpose, a regular exercise of monitoring and redressal should be carried out by a Committee.

In Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926, Supreme Court of the United States),
the U.S. Supreme Court held that, Private agreements to exclude persons of designated race or color from the use or occupancy of real estate for residential purposes do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment; but it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state courts to enforce them.

In Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917, Supreme Court of the United States),
a unanimous Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of a city ordinance which denied to colored persons the right to occupy houses in blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by white persons, and imposed similar restrictions on white persons with respect to blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by colored persons. During the course of the opinion in that case, this Court stated: "The Fourteenth Amendment and these statutes enacted in furtherance of its purpose operate to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire.

In Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U. S. 68 (1927, Supreme Court of the United States),
a unanimous court, on the authority of Buchanan v. Warley, declared invalid an ordinance which forbade any Negro to establish a home on any property in a white community or any white person to establish a home in a Negro community, "except on the written consent of a majority of the persons of the opposite race inhabiting such community or portion of the City to be affected."

In Richmond v. Deans, 281 U. S. 704 (1930, Supreme Court of the United States),
there, a Negro, barred from the occupancy of certain property by the terms of an ordinance similar to that, in the Buchanan case, sought injunctive relief in the federal courts to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance on the grounds that its provisions violated the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such relief was granted, and this Court affirmed, finding the citation of Buchanan v. Warley and Harmon v. Tyler, sufficient to support its judgment.

In Clayton v Ramsden, [1943] AC 320 (English House of Lords),
the condition was void for uncertainty. Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘the courts have always insisted that conditions of defeasance, in order to be valid, should be so framed that the persons affected (or the court if they seek its guidance) can from the outset know with certainty the exact event on the happening of which their interests are to be divested.’

3. CONCLUSION:
In nutshell we can conclude that, religion based restrictive covenant that is, an agreement between the property holders to not lease or rent to “people of the Muslim, Christian or other Abrahamic faiths, or even lower-caste Hindus”, must be declared void, unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of Human Rights Act, 1963 and The International Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), 1965. It is now extensively accepted that discrimination can take two forms: direct or indirect. Direct discrimination involves unfavorable treatment to a person because of a particular personal characteristic, such as her sex, caste, religion or race. Indirect discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral norm operates in a manner that overwhelmingly burdens people sharing a particular characteristic.


 
Don't quote me if you don't want to listen to my opinion. Now piss off.

Sure. Don't count your chickens till then.

Ahh typical hindutva scum..... you spout rambling fascist nonsense...... at the slightest wiff of truth sends you running back to the shadows.
 
2019-06-24T095008Z_1_LYNXNPEF5N0MY_RTROPTP_4_INDIA-ENVIRONMENT-REALESTATE-768x502.jpg


After living in a one-room apartment with 3 cats and visiting family members for six years, I felt it was time for me to move to a bigger house. This was the second time in my 13-year stay in Mumbai that I had to hunt for a house.

The first exercise six years ago was pretty smooth. My first house is located in the Lower Parel area, and I love the address given its proximity to my office, shopping malls, grocery markets, to name a few.

Sure, there are some drawbacks as well. It’s a commercial hub and constantly busy with construction activity and vehicular traffic, the main sources of air and noise pollution.

So for my next house, I started looking at the suburbs of Bandra, Khar, Santacruz, which are mostly residential areas with wide roads and a lot of greenery. I began contacting brokers with my requirement and budget. Many of them posted the houses available for lease on various Facebook groups.

This is very helpful as you get a brief idea about the house without actually visiting it. The brokers generally write details about the house layout, size, number of rooms, available amenities, and the asking rent in the Facebook posts. But they hide the most crucial information and that is the owners’ preferences for a tenant.

"Bachelors ko nahi denge, girls ko nahi denge, family ko nahin denge" are some of the known reservations of many house owners.

My first call to a broker was no less than a telephonic interview for a matrimonial. I liked the house he had posted on Facebook and wanted to check if I could come for a visit. So he asked me a few questions about my profession, my budget, requirement and how long I would want the house for. But for me, the most humiliating was, "Oh aap Muslim ho? Sorry, Muslims ko nahin denge”. This was the first time someone had rejected me for my religion. And these are the upmarket areas of the city.

I am a native of Ratnagiri, a district in Maharashtra renowned for alphonso mangoes, and which has a sizeable population of both Hindus and Muslims. We grew up celebrating all festivals together with equal fervour. I would go for Ganesh pooja at my friend’s place and wait for the modak. They would come to my house on Eid to eat sheerkurma and biryani. Religion never separated us from playing hide & seek in a temple or bunking college classes together.

So I was shocked to hear the broker’s blatant comment but had no choice than disconnect the call. I had heard many instances of such religious bias in Mumbai’s rental property market, but I was certain that a few cases would have been blown out of proportion. Despite the nasty experience with the broker, I still felt it could be a one-off incident and decided to try my luck elsewhere.

The next day I get a call from another broker who had a nice 2BHK available in my budget. Surprisingly, he didn’t ask me many questions and directly invited me for a visit. I was excited that my house hunt was coming to an end soon. The house had good vibes, it was furnished and was close to the railway station, something office-goers always look for. So we started talking about rent and how long would the lease be.

During the conversation, I got a call from my father and I greeted him with a traditional Salaam. I told my father I would call him in some time as I was finalising the house. After I hung up the call, the broker asked me, “Madam aap Muslim ho kya?” With a lot of hesitation I said

“Yes, kyu? kuch problem hai?”

The broker himself was a Muslim, and embarrassedly he said, “Ma’am owner Muslim ko nahin dena chahte.”

I quietly stepped out of the house while the broker kept apologising for not letting me know about the owner’s preference earlier. I was hurt and angry by those words. I wanted to call the owner and ask how did he imagine that I was going to harm him.

But then, I felt it was up to the owner to decide whom he wanted as a tenant. I still did not lose hope, and continued with the quest for a roof.

After the COVID-19 lockdown, rentals came down crashing as many tenants started vacating houses. Some lost their job, some were told to work from home so they temporarily shifted back to their native places leading to several vacant houses. I was still looking for houses and saw this as a good opportunity. But this time I started telling the brokers beforehand about my religion so that they show me only those houses where "Muslims are allowed" and I don’t face any more humiliation. But then, they started taking me to Muslim dominated localities and showed me houses that weren’t appealing at all.

"Aapke budget mein yehi ghar milega” is what one broker told me.

I gradually got used to getting turned down for extremely good houses just because of my religion. I was so frustrated that I started asking brokers “Kya problem hai Muslim hone se?”

"Unko pure vegetarian chahiye,” one broker said.

"Kitne log pure veg milenge Mumbai mein?” I questioned.

"Unko (owner) usse fark nahi padta…wo vacant rakhenge par Muslim ko nahin denge,” he said.

I started wondering if it’s only Muslims who eat non-veg in this country?
A popular broker from Bandra told me that of all the rental houses he is handling in the suburbs, about 60 percent are strictly not available for Muslims.

“Why don’t’ you specify this in your Facebook posts?” I asked him.

“I can’t write this directly. I will lose Muslim clients”, he replied.

One broker took me to a high rise, with huge balconies and a beautiful view. He probably forgot to ask me about my religion or he may have assumed I am not a Muslim. People say I look like a Gujarati, some say Punjabi and some say Pahadi. After seeing the house, I asked him upfront,

"Owner ko Muslim se koi problem nahi hai na?” Upon hearing that, his expressions underwent a sudden change.

“Aap Muslim ho?” he asked and then the rest is for you to guess.

One broker told me that some owners have had bad experiences with Muslims and hence the resistance. That may well be the case, but then, there are bad apples in all communities. Has every Muslim in Mumbai become bad and undeserving to be taken on as a tenant? Is it fair to hate the entire community for the misdeeds, if at all, of the few?

But I have not lost hope yet. This is not called a city of dreams for nothing. I am hopeful that I will soon cross paths with a fair-minded landlord.

https://www.cnbctv18.com/views/muslims-not-allowed

I feel happy they are shown their place . Call me cynical but these libtard name only muslims need to shown their place.
 
India is dripping religious harmony :disagree:



Then they have the gall to point fingers at Bangladesh :angry:



West Bengali Christians are always welcome in Bangladesh, BJP around the corner, save yourself brothers.


Indian Muslims can enjoy the fruits of their hardwork, you chose India, now you pay due penance.
 
But I am for private property rights. Hindu owners have the right to reject Muslims because they don’t want clean people who know how to wash and Muslims should be allowed to protect their property by not renting to people who drink cow urine.

If you look for a flat, you should buy one. No need for affirmative action here. Let the free market decide.
They face "spiritual" issues if the "true" Muslims are around, especially if they recite the Azan, Kuran-i Kerim etc...

Please note, one Ruh gets reflected and deflected on and by another Ruh! Hence, it's not suggested even to visit the graveyards of the non-Muslims!! And, it's suggested to keep a "business-like" and "contract-based" relationship with them, where if promises are made they're kept...
 
India is dripping religious harmony :disagree:



Then they have the gall to point fingers at Bangladesh :angry:



West Bengali Christians are always welcome in Bangladesh, BJP around the corner, save yourself brothers.


Indian Muslims can enjoy the fruits of their hardwork, you chose India, now you pay due penance.
Mumbai is a city where areas are divided between caste, religion and language. I being a Hindu had a tough time in getting house to my choice. Reason being I am a non vegetarian eating fish.

So I have to find an area of Hindus, where outsiders are allowed and they can eat non veg (off course on my budget) . It was the crappiest experience I have for finding a house.

Otherwise mumbai is a nice, extremely safe and lively.
 
Back
Top Bottom