The Karnataka High Court has issued a set of guidelines for the regulation, inspection and safety of private paying guest (PG) accommodations in Bengaluru, directing authorities to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and the protection of the rights and safety of occupants.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a September 10 ruling, while considering a case concerning the regulation of paying guest accommodations.

The Court has also directed the authorities to submit a consolidated protocol within six weeks covering applicable requirements, enforcement responsibilities, inspection methodology and consequences of non-compliance.

During the hearing, counsel for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Greater Banaglore Authority (GBA) informed the Court that notices had been issued to 68 paying guest accommodations in Bengaluru North.

The Court was also informed that approximately 5,000 paying guest accommodations operate in Bengaluru East, of which nearly 2,500 were allegedly being run without proper licences, sanctioned plans or adequate fire safety arrangements.

The authorities stated that cases would be filed before competent civil courts against illegal PG accommodations, wherever necessary, following an opportunity of hearing to the concerned establishments.

Taking note of the seriousness of the matter and the number of people residing in paying guest accommodations, the Court issued guidelines covering the following aspects.

Identification and licensing

The competent local authority must identify all premises operating as PG accommodations, including establishments operating without licences, with expired licences or in buildings not approved for such use.

The Court directed authorities to examine the actual nature of activities rather than rely solely on the nomenclature adopted by operators.

Building and land-use compliance

Authorities must examine whether PG premises comply with:

- Sanctioned building plans.

- Permitted land use.

- Zoning requirements.

- Structural safety norms.

- Restrictions on unauthorised mezzanine floors, terraces and room conversions.

The Court clarified that the grant of a trade licence would not, by itself, regularise unauthorised construction.

3. Occupancy and overcrowding

The guidelines require authorities to verify sanctioned and licensed capacity, the number of rooms and beds, actual occupancy and the area available per occupant.

The Court noted that the existing Bengaluru PG licensing framework refers to a minimum area of 70 square feet per occupant. It directed authorities to verify compliance with applicable requirements rather than merely rely on declarations that premises are not overcrowded.

Fire and electrical safety to receive priority

The Court directed that fire safety be treated as a primary life-safety requirement.

Inspections must include verification of fire safety clearances, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, staircases, evacuation routes, emergency exits and LPG and kitchen safety arrangements.

The guidelines also require inspection of electrical panels, earthing, circuit protection, overloaded circuits, exposed conductors, unsafe alterations and other electrical hazards.

Where defects pose an immediate risk of fire, electrocution or death, authorities must take immediate action in accordance with law.

CCTV systems must be functional

The Court specified that CCTV compliance must extend beyond installation.

Inspections must verify camera coverage, entrances and exits, common corridors, recording, date and time accuracy, storage capacity, retention period and power backup.

The guidelines prohibit installation of CCTV cameras in bedrooms, bathrooms, toilets, changing areas or other locations where occupants have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Relevant footage must be preserved following serious incidents or lawful directions, and tampering with or deleting footage must be dealt with in accordance with law.

Protection of women and vulnerable occupants

The guidelines require PG operators to implement security arrangements proportionate to the nature and occupancy of their establishments, particularly where women and other vulnerable persons are accommodated.

Specific measures include controlled entry, visitor verification, lighting, functional locks, CCTV in common areas, emergency communication and security personnel wherever required.

The Court further directed that complaints concerning sexual harassment, assault, stalking, intimidation or violence be dealt with in accordance with law. Operators cannot suppress such complaints or insist that occupants resolve criminal matters solely through internal mechanisms.

Operators responsible for day-to-day compliance

The Court distinguished the responsibilities of owners, lessees, operators and persons responsible for day-to-day management.

The operator must ensure compliance with permitted occupancy, occupant records, security arrangements, functional CCTV, fire and emergency arrangements, sanitation, hygiene and food safety requirements.

The guidelines also state that ownership of a building does not, by itself, make the owner liable for every operational violation committed by an independent operator. Liability must be attributed according to the role performed and applicable statutory duties.

Authorities directed to submit consolidated protocol

The Court directed the competent authorities to place before it, within six weeks, a consolidated protocol identifying:

- Applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

- Authorities responsible for enforcement.

- Evidence required during inspections.

- Inspection methodology.

- Classification of violations.

- Time permitted for rectification.

- Consequences of non-compliance with applicable laws.

The Court further directed that enforcement should be uniform and non-discriminatory.

It clarified that lawful PG accommodation is not, by itself, an undesirable activity, while emphasising that such accommodation must be provided safely, hygienically and in accordance with the governing statutory framework.

Multiple authorities brought on record

The Court directed the involvement of various authorities, including the Greater Bengaluru Authority, constituent corporations, Fire Department, Health Department, Food Safety Department, Police, Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board and BESCOM.

The authorities were directed to coordinate their efforts in implementing the guidelines and maintaining records of inspections and compliance.

The matter will be taken up next on September 28.

[Read Order]