POLICY PROPOSAL

Safe, Affordable, and Accountable: A Regulatory Framework for Student PG Accommodations

Submitted to: Department of Higher Education / Urban Local Bodies, State Government

Prepared by: [ Student Body / SAARC STUDENTS & RESEARCHERS FORUM]

Date: [08.09.2026]

1. Executive Summary
Across the state, students migrating for higher education are being pushed into an unregulated and predatory Paying-Guest (PG) and private hostel market. In the near-total absence of state oversight, students and their families face inflated rents, arbitrary and non-refundable security deposits, unsafe and overcrowded buildings, and no credible authority to approach for redress. This is not a private inconvenience; it is a structural policy failure that converts the pursuit of education into a source of chronic financial strain and mental distress for lakhs of students and their families.

This proposal recommends a three-part regulatory framework — (1) mandatory licensing and safety certification for PGs, (2) standardized rent regulation and a security-deposit cap, and (3) a statutory Student Accommodation Regulatory Board (SARB) with real enforcement powers — to correct this market failure and restore accountability to the state government.

2. Background and Statement of the Problem
Student housing around university and college hubs has developed into a largely informal, cartelized market. In the absence of licensing requirements, occupancy standards, or rent benchmarks, landlords and PG operators face no meaningful accountability for pricing, safety, or conduct. This has produced a set of recurring, state-wide harms:

▪      Financial exploitation: Rents around campus hubs are set collusively rather than competitively, with steep annual hikes and security deposits running into several months' rent, often withheld at the end of tenancy without justification.

▪      Safety negligence: Many PGs operate out of converted residential buildings with no fire safety clearance, no structural audit, and occupancy levels far beyond what the space can safely hold.

▪      Institutional apathy: Universities largely treat off-campus housing as outside their remit, leaving students with no institutional point of contact when disputes arise with landlords.

▪      Absence of grievance redressal: There is no dedicated, accessible authority for a student to approach when overcharged, evicted arbitrarily, or housed in an unsafe building — leaving civil court, which is slow and costly, as the only formal option.

▪      Cumulative mental health toll: The compounding uncertainty of housing insecurity, unpredictable costs, and unsafe living conditions adds a chronic, avoidable layer of stress on top of academic pressure.

Left unaddressed, this pattern of mismanagement effectively taxes students' right to education with a hidden cost of anxiety, debt, and displacement. The state government has the regulatory tools to correct this; what is missing is the political will to apply them to the student housing sector the way they are already applied to other tenancy and building-safety domains.

3. Objectives of the Proposal
▪      To bring every commercial and student PG under a verifiable, government-issued licensing regime.

▪      To eliminate predatory and cartelized rent pricing through a transparent, locality-linked rent ceiling.

▪      To cap security deposits and impose real penalties for wrongful withholding.

▪      To create a standing, empowered, multi-stakeholder body with the authority to inspect, penalize, and shut down non-compliant PGs.

▪      To give students a fast, accessible grievance redressal channel outside the civil court system.

4. Proposed Policy Framework
4.1  Mandatory Licensing and Safety Certification for PGs

Every property operating as a commercial or student PG must be required to hold a valid, annually renewed operating license issued by the local civic authority (municipal corporation / urban local body). Licensing should be a precondition for legally operating as a PG, not a voluntary registration.

▪      Mandatory annual third-party structural safety audits, conducted by empanelled licensed engineers, as a condition of license renewal.

▪      Occupancy caps fixed in proportion to the built-up square footage of each unit, published on the license certificate itself.

▪      A valid Fire Department No-Objection Certificate (NOC), verified before any tenant is allowed to move in — not retrofitted after an incident.

▪      Public display of the license, occupancy cap, and NOC at the property entrance, and a searchable online registry for students to verify a PG before signing an agreement.

4.2  Standardized Rent Regulation and Security Deposit Cap

A statutory rent ceiling should be institutionalized, indexed to locality and the basic amenities on offer, specifically to break the informal price-fixing that currently governs rents around campus hubs.

▪      Locality-wise fair rent bands published and revised periodically by the regulatory authority (see Section 4.3), based on amenities, room-sharing ratio, and structural condition.

▪      Advance security deposits legally capped at a maximum of one month's rent, ending the current practice of demanding three to six months upfront.

▪      Statutory, time-bound penalties on landlords who withhold deposits without a written, itemized justification — with the deposit becoming automatically refundable if no itemization is provided within a fixed number of days of vacancy.

4.3  Formation of a Joint Student Accommodation Regulatory Board (SARB)

An empowered statutory oversight committee should be constituted to administer and enforce the above provisions, composed of:

▪      University representatives — Vice-Chancellor nominees and the Dean of Students' Welfare.

▪      Local government and municipal authorities — Ward Councillor, local MLA, and Municipal Deputy Commissioner.

▪      Student body representatives — elected student union members and tenant representatives.

The SARB's mandate and powers should include:

▪      Bi-monthly public hearings open to students and landlords to raise and resolve disputes.

▪      A dedicated online student grievance redressal portal with defined, time-bound response timelines.

▪      Authority to conduct surprise inspections of licensed and suspected unlicensed PGs.

▪      Legal authority to suspend or shut down non-compliant PGs, and to blacklist repeat-offending operators from re-licensing.

5. Expected Outcomes
Problem Today
Outcome Under This Proposal
No licensing; unsafe, overcrowded buildings
Every PG licensed, audited, and fire-NOC verified before occupancy
Cartelized, unpredictable rents
Transparent, locality-linked rent ceilings
3–6 month deposits, routinely withheld
One-month deposit cap with penalties for wrongful withholding
No accountable authority for students
Statutory SARB with inspection and shutdown powers
Court as the only, slow recourse
Bi-monthly hearings and an online grievance portal
6. Implementation Roadmap
▪      Phase 1 (0–3 months): Notify the licensing framework; constitute the SARB; publish draft rent bands for public comment.

▪      Phase 2 (3–6 months): Complete structural audits and fire NOCs for existing PGs; open the online PG registry and grievance portal.

▪      Phase 3 (6–12 months): Full enforcement of licensing, rent ceilings, and the deposit cap; begin surprise inspections and bi-monthly public hearings.

▪      Ongoing: Annual license renewal cycle, periodic rent-band revision, and continuous public reporting of SARB action taken.

7. Conclusion
The current absence of regulation in student housing is a direct and avoidable contributor to the financial and mental burden students carry through their education. Licensing and safety certification, rent and deposit regulation, and an empowered joint regulatory board together form a workable, enforceable framework that costs the state little to implement but would materially change the daily reality of every student living away from home. We urge the state government to take up this proposal as a matter of priority.