The Allahabad High Court has invalidated critical sections of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, citing conflicts with existing central laws and the absence of the necessary Presidential assent. This decision was handed down in the case of Inder Bhushan Sawhney v Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Others. The ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, who declared Sections 8, 9, 10, 38, and 42 of the Act unconstitutional.
Conflict with the Transfer of Property Act
The Bench found that Sections 8, 9, and 10, which deal with rent payment and adjustments, were inconsistent with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court explained, “Section 8 permits rent revision as outlined in Section 9 and its determination as per Section 10. While revisions can occur under a tenancy agreement, as provided by the TPA, the Impugned Act mandates upward rent revisions at specific rates. Additionally, Section 10 allows for the resolution of rent disputes between landlords and tenants, conflicting with TPA provisions,” noted the Bench.
Procedural Inconsistencies Requiring Presidential Assent
The Court further addressed Sections 38 and 42, which sought to override procedures established under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the UP Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. The Court indicated that the creation of a special forum under the Impugned Act to resolve disputes was contrary to the established procedures, which required Presidential assent. “The Impugned Act envisions a Rent Authority and a Rent Tribunal, creating a clear conflict with the SCC Act and the Civil Laws Act,” the Court elaborated.
The judgment was rendered in response to multiple petitions disputing the 2021 Act’s legitimacy, particularly provisions concerning rent revisions, rent authority determinations, and eviction procedures. Delivered on August 21, the Court’s decision highlighted that the absence of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) rendered the State law invalid, given its conflict with existing Central legislation in the concurrent list of Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution.
Implications on Tenancy Agreements
The Bench observed that the UP law’s rent-related provisions under Chapter III created unique rights and liabilities, diverging from the Transfer of Property Act. The Act permits lessors to escalate rent and initiate eviction proceedings under circumstances not stipulated in lease agreements, such as for non-payment of rent, repair necessities, or personal occupation needs.
More Read
The Court underscored that legal heirs of deceased landlords are also empowered to evict tenants based on personal necessity. Should tenants refuse to vacate, the law imposes penal rent clauses, conflicting with the Transfer of Property Act’s provisions.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that Sections 8, 9, and 10, along with provisions allowing eviction by rent authority order, are incompatible with the Transfer of Property Act. Furthermore, Sections 38 and 42 were deemed ultra vires without the required Presidential Assent, conflicting with the procedural laws established by the SCC Act and the Civil Laws Act.
However, the Court preserved the validity of proceedings already concluded under the 2021 Act, where the contested provisions were not challenged. Rent agreements and revisions made under the Act remain intact.
More Read
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Shashi Nandan, while Additional Advocate General Rahul Agarwal appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Ashish Kumar Singh and Advocate Sudeep Harkauli represented other respondents.
[Read Judgment]
