The government says it wants to protect tenants.
The proposed Rental Safety Act, however, threatens to do something far more consequential: criminalise ordinary economic relationships.

That is why the Bill has triggered such fierce resistance — not only from landlords and real-estate bodies, but from legal experts and civil-society voices who see in it a dangerous shift in how the State chooses to exercise power.

At the centre of the storm is one stark provision:

landlords found guilty could face fines of up to Rs. 2 million or imprisonment of up to two years.

This is not regulatory housekeeping.
This is the criminal law entering the living room.

A Line Being Crossed

Tenant vulnerability is real. Rising rents, housing shortages, and uneven bargaining power are facts of life in today’s Sri Lanka. No serious observer disputes the need for stronger tenant protection.

But the method matters.

For decades, rental disputes have been treated as civil matters — governed by contracts, mediation, tribunals, and courts. Remedies were imperfect and slow, but proportionate. They recognised that disagreements between private parties, however painful, do not automatically constitute crimes.

The proposed Act redraws that boundary. It transforms what were once civil breaches into potential criminal offences, complete with jail time.

That is a profound escalation — and one that demands far more justification than has so far been offered.

Protection, or Political Optics?

Opposition lawmakers and industry groups have labelled the Bill “draconian” and “economically destructive.” Some have gone further, calling it legislation “born of jealousy” toward property owners — emotive language, perhaps, but indicative of a deeper fear: that the State is drifting from regulation into resentment.

When laws are framed less around balance and more around punishment, confidence collapses quickly.

The uncomfortable question is whether this Bill is designed to solve housing insecurity — or to signal moral authority by targeting a politically convenient group perceived as better off.

Good intentions do not absolve bad design.

The Economic Reality Waiting Outside Parliament

Sri Lanka’s real-estate sector is already brittle.

Foreign investors remain cautious. Local investors are wary. Rental yields are under pressure. Construction activity is uneven. Confidence, once shattered, has not fully returned.

Into this environment, the State now proposes to introduce criminal risk for landlords.

The consequences are predictable:

fewer properties offered for rent,
higher rents to offset legal exposure,
growth of informal, unregulated arrangements, selective enforcement and litigation overload.

The irony is hard to miss: a law sold as tenant protection could leave tenants with fewer choices at higher prices.

Markets do not respond well to fear — and criminal sanctions are the sharpest form of fear the State can deploy.

Why Criminal Law Is the Wrong Tool

Criminal law exists to punish conduct that threatens public order: violence, fraud, theft, systemic corruption. It carries stigma, coercion, and imprisonment for a reason.

Using it to govern contractual disputes between private citizens is not reform. It is overreach.

Once criminal sanctions enter everyday economic life, a precedent is set. Today it is landlords. Tomorrow it could be employers. After that, professionals, traders, or service providers.

The scope may differ. The logic does not.

If tenant protection is the genuine objective, lawmakers must explain why civil remedies, housing tribunals, rent regulation, standardised contracts, or fast-track dispute resolution were deemed insufficient.

So far, that explanation has not been convincingly made.

The Question That Must Be Answered
Sri Lanka needs laws that are predictable, proportionate, and fair — not legislation that deepens social divides by turning private economic relationships into criminal battlegrounds.

This is not a defence of exploitative landlords. Nor is it an argument against tenant rights.

It is a warning about method.

Before this Bill hardens into law, Parliament must answer a simple but decisive question:

Is the State trying to fix a housing problem — or punish a class it finds politically convenient to target?

Until that answer is clear, suspicion will persist.
And when suspicion enters lawmaking, the damage often outlives the statute.

Civil vs Criminal Remedies in Rental Law

Why the distinction matters:
Criminalising rental disputes raises the threshold of State intervention dramatically. It risks chilling investment, encouraging evasion, and politicising enforcement — while offering no guarantee of better outcomes for tenants.