The Allahabad High Court has held that the Rent Authority constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (Act of 2021) possesses the jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications filed by landlords even in cases where a tenancy agreement has not been executed in writing or where the landlord has failed to file particulars of the tenancy with the Rent Authority.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, while deciding a batch of six connected matters, clarified that the requirement under Section 4 of the Act of 2021 to intimate the Rent Authority about the tenancy is directory in nature, and the non-execution of a written agreement does not debar a landlord from seeking relief under the Act.
Legal Issue and Background
The core legal issue before the Court was: “Whether the rent authority, constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2021, has the jurisdiction to entertain application filed by landlord in cases where tenancy agreement has not been executed, if not executed, the landlord having failed to file particulars of tenancy with rent authority.”
The dispute arose following the repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and the enactment of the Act of 2021. The new Act was introduced to bring the state law in tune with the Model Tenancy Act prepared by the Central Government.
Various Rent Authorities and Tribunals across the state had taken diverging views on whether proceedings under the Act of 2021 were maintainable in the absence of a written tenancy agreement or the unique identification number generated upon intimating the tenancy to the Rent Authority.
Arguments of the Parties
In the lead petition (Canara Bank Branch Office vs. Sri Ashok Kumar), the petitioner-tenant challenged the maintainability of a Small Cause Court (SCC) suit filed by the landlord, arguing that after the enforcement of the Act of 2021, the suit was barred by Section 38.
In connected writ petitions (e.g., M/S Tifco & Associates vs. Rachna Rastogi), landlords challenged orders from the Rent Tribunal which had set aside eviction orders passed by the Rent Authority. The Tribunal had held that proceedings were not maintainable because no written agreement existed as per Section 4(3) of the Act of 2021.
Conversely, in other connected matters, tenants argued that without a written agreement and compliance with Rule 7 of the Tenancy Rules, 2021 (requiring a unique ID), the Rent Authority lacked jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed comparative analysis of the Model Tenancy Act (Central) and the UP Act of 2021.
Conscious Departure from Model Act Justice Agarwal observed a “marked departure” in the State Act. While Section 4(6) of the Model Tenancy Act explicitly precluded landlords and tenants from claiming any relief if they failed to intimate the tenancy agreement, the UP Legislature “deliberately chosen to omit prescription of such consequences.”
The Court observed:
“It is trite law that where omissions in a statute are conscious, Legislative intendment are not accidental, the omissions made by the Legislature in its wisdom are to be respected and same cannot be filled up by judicial interpretive process.”
Section 4 is Directory, Not Mandatory The Court held that although Section 4(3) uses the word “shall” regarding the submission of tenancy particulars, it does not envisage penal consequences for non-compliance. Therefore, the requirement is directory.
“In case where there is no dispute as to the landlord-tenant relationship, no mileage can be drawn out of the expression ‘shall’ employed in sub-section (3) of Section 4 as well as its first proviso to intend that non-intimation by landlord would divest him of all the right under the Act of 2021.”
Jurisdiction under Section 38(2) The Court rejected the argument that Section 38(2) limits the Rent Authority’s jurisdiction only to cases with a written agreement. The Court clarified that this section circumscribes the authority’s power—preventing it from deciding title disputes—but does not confer jurisdiction based solely on the existence of a written agreement.
“Sub-section (2) of Section 38 is not a provision conferring jurisdiction, but rather is a provision that circumscribes the jurisdiction of rent authority proscribing it to not venture into adjudication of dispute of title or ownership and keeping itself to be convenient to the dispute that may arise under the tenancy agreement.”
No Conflict in Precedents The Court examined previous coordinate Bench judgments, including Amit Gupta vs. Gulab Chandra Kanodia (2023), Alok Gupta vs. District Judge (2024), Amarjeet Singh vs. Smt. Shiv Kumari Yadav (2024), and Vishal Rastogi vs. Rent Controller (2025). Justice Agarwal concluded there was no conflict or overlapping between these judgments as they operated in different areas, and thus, a reference to a Larger Bench was unnecessary.
Decision
The High Court ruled that the Rent Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications even without an executed tenancy agreement or intimation of particulars.
The Court passed the following orders in the connected matters:
- Matters Under Article 227 No. 626 of 2024 (Canara Bank): The petition by the tenant was dismissed. The Court upheld the lower court’s rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding that the SCC Suit was not barred by the Act of 2021.
- Writ Petition Nos. 5714 of 2024 & 6623 of 2024: These petitions filed by landlords were partly allowed. The Court set aside the Rent Tribunal’s orders which had deemed the eviction proceedings not maintainable due to the lack of a written agreement. The matters were remanded to the Rent Tribunal to decide within two months.
- Writ Petition Nos. 5411 of 2024 & 5413 of 2024: Petitions filed by tenants against eviction orders were dismissed. The Court upheld the maintainability of the eviction proceedings under Section 21(2)(m) despite the absence of a written agreement. The tenants were granted time until June 30, 2026, to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking and paying the decretal amount.
- SCC Revision No. 44 of 2024: The revision filed by the tenant was dismissed, with the Court holding that the SCC suit was not barred under Section 38 of the Act of 2021. The trial court was directed to decide the suit within six months.
Case Details
Case Title: Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other vs. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh (and connected matters)
Case No: Matters Under Article 227 No. 626 of 2024; Writ-A Nos. 5714, 6623, 5411, 5413 of 2024; SCC Revision No. 44 of 2024
Coram: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Counsel for Petitioners: Krishna Mohan Asthana, Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta, Akriti Chaturvedi, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Rakesh Kumar Singh (Sr. Adv), Vishnu Gupta (Sr. Adv)
Counsel for Respondents: Himanshu Mishra, Kunal Shah, P.K. Jain (Sr. Adv), Atipriya Gautam, Saurabh Patel, Prashant Pandey
Citation: 2025:AHC:225540
