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.About the AuthorRajesh Kumar PandeyA legal eagle stationed in Sangam city. Has been covering news reports originating out of Allahabad high court for TOI for over a decade. Have reported several landmark judgments, besides the visit of luminaries — from the PM to CJIs.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosShankh Air Founder Speaks Out As Airline Eyes March Launch, Targets Intl Flights By 2029’Their Islamist Ideas…’: Ex-Bangladesh Minister Hits Out Over Attacks on Hindus And Christians’Very Petty & Shameful’: Shashi Tharoor On Row Over KKR Selecting Bangladeshi Player In IPLINLD President Calls For Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal Type Uprising In India Politics, Triggers RowBJP Claims Rahul Gandhi Ties To ‘Anti-India’ Panel Over US Lawmakers’ Umar Khalid LetterNot All Are Illiterate: Rajnath Singh Cites Red Fort Blast, Flags Educated, White Collar Terrorists’Arunachal Pradesh Is And Will Always Be…’ Jaishankar Warns China, Blasts Harassment Of IndiansBullet Train Gets August 15, 2027 India Launch Date, Minister Shares Details On Tunnel BreakthroughCleanest City Hit By Water Contamination As Lab Links Indore Diarrhoea Outbreak To Pipeline LeakUS Lawmaker Raja Krishnamoorthi Condemns Violence Against Hindus In Bangladesh Urges Global Action Up123PhotostoriesWhy your fish keeps dying: 5 mistakes most aquarium owners make without realising7 foods to combine with sweet potato for a wholesome breakfastOlder people who live happily, do these 10 things in their 30 and 40s8 winter pickles to add warmth and taste to your mealsLessons from centenarians: What the world’s longest-living people eat‘Shark Tank India Season 5’: FULL LIST of judges, their net worth, and the brands they ownKylie Jenner-Timothée Chalamet to complete 3 years of dating in 2026: 3 relationship lessons to learn from themHow to make Dhaba-style Dal Makhani at homeAttract True Love During the January 2026 Full Moon; According To Birth Number10 oldest trees in the world that are still living and where can they be found123Hot PicksPremarital Test OmanVande Bharat Sleeper TrainJanuary Bank holidayGold rate todayIncome Tax RefundBahrain Golden Visa 2025Bank Holidays DecemberTop TrendingSan Francisco 49ersBrittany MahomesNoah Lyles and Junelle Bromfield Net WorthWayne Gretzky Daughter Net WorthSidney Crosby LifestyleLeBron James vs Stephen Curry Net WorthTom BradyLeBron James WifeCam ThomasCharlie Kirk
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.
