Allahabad HC
PRAYAGRAJ: Allahabad HC has held that absence of written tenancy agreement or not furnishing particulars of tenancy do not bar jurisdiction of rent authority. HC has also said that under Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, rent authority has jurisdiction to entertain a landlord’s application for eviction of tenant where no written tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has also failed to furnish particulars of tenancy. HC emphasised state legislature’s conscious decision to omit “fatal consequences” found in Central Model Tenancy Act ensured landlords were not deprived of their right to seek expedient eviction due to technical documentation failures. With this judgment dated Dec 16, HC partly allowed writ petitions filed by Canara Bank’s branch office and others. The issue in writ petitions was whether rent authority, constituted according to the 2021 law, had jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by landlords in cases where a tenancy agreement had not been executed, if not executed, the landlord having failed to file particulars of tenancy with the rent authority. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said, “This provision leads to the conclusion that jurisdiction of rent authority under the Act of 2021 cannot be narrowed down only in cases of written agreement and its intimation to rent authority. Had the legislature thought of giving limited access to landlord or tenant to approach rent authority only in cases of written agreement or its intimation, then proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 would not have been there in the statute book. The intention of the legislature cannot be ascertained merely on the basis of single provision, and regard must be given to other sections as well as the context, subject-matter and the object of the provision.” On behalf of the landlord, it was argued the 2021 Act was intended to balance the rights of owners and tenants. They maintained the legislature deliberately omitted the “consequences” for failing to intimate an agreement to ensure landlords were not stripped of their right to seek eviction. Essentially, they argued rent authority should handle disputes even in unwritten tenancies to prevent the law’s objectives from being frustrated by technicalities. HC observed the proviso further clarified the position to the extent that, in case of failure to present the agreement jointly or failing to reach an agreement, only particulars submitted separately with rent authority by the parties would suffice as to tenancy. For cases where eviction was sought directly under the new law, HC set aside orders that had previously deemed such applications non-maintainable due to a lack of written agreements. While some matters were remanded for fresh decisions, others resulted in eviction orders. In certain petitions, tenants were granted a six-month grace period to vacate the premises, provided they submitted a formal undertaking and cleared all financial dues.
