The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Rent Authority established under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (UP Act No. 16 of 2021) is not bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and has the power to regulate its own procedure. This significant judgment was delivered by Justice Ashutosh Srivastava while dismissing a batch of 23 petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The lead petition (No. 3112 of 2023) was filed by Nirmal Agarwal against Pradeep Kumar Gupta, challenging an order dated March 1, 2023, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra. The case revolved around a shop on the ground floor of property No. 31/58-59, Kokamal Market, Rawatpara, Agra, let out to the petitioner by Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust.
The respondent, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, claiming to be the Secretary of the Trust, had filed an application under Section 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 for determination of rent. The petitioner objected to the maintainability of this application, arguing that the Trust had not been impleaded as a party and that the respondent, being merely a Secretary, lacked the authority to file such an application.
Key Legal Issues
The court identified three main issues:
1. Whether the application under Section 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 was maintainable when filed by the Trust’s Secretary.
2. Whether an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was maintainable before the Rent Authority.
3. Whether the Rent Authority’s order declining to decide the maintainability issue separately was legally valid.
Court’s Decision
1. On the first issue, the court held that the application under Section 10 was maintainable. It found that the Trust, through its Secretary, had filed the application, and any error in description was a curable defect.
2. Regarding the second issue, the court ruled that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not maintainable before the Rent Authority. Justice Srivastava observed: “Section 33 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal has specifically laid down that nothing contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) shall apply to the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal.”
3. On the third issue, the court found no illegality in the Rent Authority’s order. It upheld the Authority’s decision to allow the petitioner to raise all objections in the written statement, to be considered at the final hearing stage.
Important Observations
The court made several significant observations:
1. On the definition of “Landlord” under the Act: “The definition includes a person who receives rent on behalf of the owner/lessor as per Section 2 (b) (ii) of the Act.”
2. On the application of CPC: “The adoption of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would run counter productive to the scheme of the Act as it would result in unnecessary delays.”
3. On the Rent Authority’s procedure: “The Rent Authority/Tribunal shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and have the power to regulate their own procedure subject to the sub-clauses (a) to (e) [of Section 33].”
Conclusion
In dismissing all 23 petitions, the High Court upheld the autonomy of the Rent Authority in regulating its own procedure. It directed the Rent Authority to decide the application under Section 10 of the Act within 60 days, as mandated by Section 33(2) of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021.
Also Read
The petitioners were represented by Rishabh Agarwal and Tarun Agrawal, while the respondent was represented by Rama Goel Bansal. This judgment significantly clarifies the procedural aspects of the newly enacted UP Act No. 16 of 2021 and reinforces the special nature of rent control legislation.
