The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stay order on a recent notification that extended the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to the Union Territory of Chandigarh with specific modifications. This decision came after the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association challenged the notification, arguing that it strips judicial officers of their adjudicatory powers by transferring them to the executive authority.
The case, named Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Regd. and another v Chandigarh Administration and others, also questions the Union government’s jurisdiction to issue such a notification under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda, emphasized the need to examine whether tenancy and eviction disputes can legally be decided by an executive authority, referencing the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Madras Bar Association v Union of India and another.
The Bench further highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled in 1989 that while powers under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganization Act can supplement existing laws, they cannot lead to the repeal of such laws. The notification issued on May 6 effectively repealed the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which had governed rental agreements in Chandigarh.
The court noted that the necessary infrastructure for dispute resolution under the new notification has not been established. Additionally, the rules mandated under clause 13 of the notification have yet to be formulated, leaving individuals with rent disputes without a forum to seek remedies.
“For the past three weeks, individuals seeking remedies for rent disputes have been unable to do so,” the Bench observed, “as the 1949 Act has been repealed and the new notification lacks implementation due to the absence of infrastructure and unformulated rules.” The court remarked that under the previous act, approximately 30-50 cases were filed daily, but the recent notification has left the public without recourse for 21 days.
More Read
In light of these circumstances, the court ordered that the notification dated May 6 be suspended until the next hearing, allowing the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, to govern dispute adjudications. The next hearing is scheduled for July 14. The court clarified that its interim order does not prevent authorities from establishing the necessary infrastructure or formulating the required rules under the notification.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, along with Advocates Shifali Goyal and Ritvik Garg. Bar Association President Rohit Sud, Joint Secretary Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate Kamla Mahek, and Executive Member Sumanjit Kaur also participated. Representing the Union government were Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain, and Central Government Counsel Shreyansi Verma. Senior Standing Counsel Amit Jhanji, along with Additional Standing Counsel Abhinav Sood and Advocates Eliza Gupta, Mehndi Singhal, Anmol Gupta, Sayyam Garg, and Kudrit, appeared for the Chandigarh Administration.
[Read Order]
