The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the absence of a written tenancy agreement, or the failure to submit tenancy details, does not take away the jurisdiction of the rent authority. The court said that under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the rent authority can hear a landlord’s eviction plea even if no written agreement exists and even if tenancy particulars were not furnished.
The High Court made it clear that landlords cannot be denied the right to approach the rent authority just because of documentation lapses. It noted that the Uttar Pradesh legislature had consciously chosen not to include the “fatal consequences” clause found in the Central Model Tenancy Act. This ensured that landlords are not prevented from seeking eviction merely due to technical failures like the absence of a written agreement.
Case background
The ruling came in a judgment dated December 16, through which the High Court partly allowed writ petitions filed by Canara Bank’s branch office and others.
The main issue before the court was whether the rent authority, set up under the 2021 law, had the power to hear eviction applications when no tenancy agreement was executed or when tenancy details were not filed with the authority.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said that the jurisdiction of the rent authority under the 2021 Act cannot be limited only to cases where there is a written tenancy agreement and its formal intimation. He observed that if the legislature had intended to restrict access to the rent authority only to such cases, certain provisions in the law would not have been included.
“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,” PTI quoted Agarwal as saying.
He added that legislative intent must be understood by reading the law as a whole, keeping in mind its purpose and overall framework, not by relying on a single provision.
Arguments by the landlord
On behalf of the landlords, it was argued that the 2021 Act was designed to strike a balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. They said the legislature deliberately avoided prescribing harsh consequences for not informing the rent authority about a tenancy, so that landlords would not lose their right to seek eviction.
According to them, disputes should be handled by the rent authority even in unwritten tenancies, otherwise the objective of the law would be defeated by technicalities.
Court’s observations on tenancy details
The High Court also noted that the proviso in the law clearly explains that if parties fail to jointly submit the tenancy agreement or fail to reach an agreement, then even separate submission of tenancy particulars by either party before the rent authority would be sufficient to establish the tenancy.
In cases where eviction was sought directly under the 2021 Act, the High Court set aside earlier orders that had rejected such applications as non-maintainable due to the absence of written agreements. Some matters were sent back for fresh consideration, while in others eviction orders were upheld. In a few petitions, tenants were given six months’ time to vacate the premises, subject to filing a formal undertaking and clearing all outstanding dues.
