In a significant ruling that provides relief to property owners, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that the absence of a written tenancy agreement or failure to furnish its particulars does not prevent a rent authority from hearing an eviction case. The judgment, delivered on December 16, underscores the legislature's intent to ensure landlords are not deprived of their rights due to documentation failures.
Court's Rationale: Preventing "Fatal Consequences"
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over the case, emphasized that the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was consciously designed to avoid the "fatal consequences" for landlords found in the Central Model Tenancy Act. The court noted that the state legislature deliberately omitted provisions that would have made written agreements mandatory for initiating eviction proceedings.
"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," Justice Agarwal observed. The judgment stressed that the law's intention must be understood by reading all sections together, not in isolation.
Case Background and Outcome
The ruling partially allowed writ petitions filed by, among others, a branch office of Canara Bank. The core legal question was whether a rent authority, constituted under the 2021 law, had the jurisdiction to entertain a landlord's application when no formal tenancy agreement existed or its details were not filed.
The court set aside previous orders that had deemed such applications non-maintainable. While some cases were sent back to the rent authority for fresh consideration, others resulted in direct eviction orders. In specific petitions, tenants were granted a six-month grace period to vacate, conditional upon submitting a formal undertaking and clearing all pending dues.
Balancing Rights and Avoiding Technicalities
The landlords' counsel successfully argued that the 2021 Act aimed to balance the rights of both owners and tenants. They maintained that the legislature's omission of strict penalties for not intimating an agreement was intentional, ensuring that the core objective of the law—providing an expedient mechanism for dispute resolution—was not defeated by procedural technicalities.
The High Court agreed, noting that the Act's proviso clarifies that in cases where a joint agreement is not presented, separately submitted particulars by either party are sufficient to establish tenancy before the authority. This interpretation prevents the law's purpose from being frustrated and allows disputes over unwritten tenancies to be adjudicated effectively.
This landmark judgment reinforces the jurisdiction of rent authorities under the new state law and offers a pragmatic approach to tenancy disputes, prioritizing substantive justice over rigid procedural compliance.
