Absence Of Written Tenancy Agreement Or Not Furnishing Particulars Of Tenancy Don't Bar Rent Authority Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the rent authority has the jurisdiction to entertain landlord's application for eviction of tenant where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has also failed to furnish the particulars of tenancy.

Referring to various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,

“rent authority constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain application filed by landlord in cases where tenancy agreement has not been executed, and landlord having failed to intimate particulars of tenancy to the authority.”

Landlord filed a suit in Small Causes Court for eviction of tenant and rent arrears on grounds that the tenant had made significant changes to the property. Tenant-petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act of 2021, the suit stood barred by Section 38 (Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in respect of certain matters).

This application was rejected by the Small Causes Court, Accordingly, petitioner approached the High Court.

The question 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.”

Discussing the Act of 2021 and its provisions, the Court observed that in the Model Tenancy Act prepared by Central Government, and the Act of 2021 enacted by State Legislature there was a departure from the mandatory nature of a tenancy agreement and its intimation to the rent authority.

“On the one hand, Model Tenancy Act expressly provides in sub- section (6) of Section 4 that on ground of failure of parties to intimate about execution or non execution of tenancy agreement, would both preclude landlord and tenant from claiming any relief. While on the other hand, State Legislature while adopting Model Tenancy Act to certain extent has chosen to omit prescription of such consequences, debarring failure of parties to intimate about execution or non execution of tenancy agreement to rent authority.”

The Court observed that Section 4 of the Act of 2021 provides for written tenancy agreement and where the parties cannot agree on terms, they must separately submit the details of the tenancy before the rent authority. It also provides that if only the landlord has submitted the details within the prescribed period and the tenant has not done so, the landlord can file for eviction of the tenant.

“Section 4 only envisages different types of situation in which a tenancy agreement is arrived between the landlord and tenant. It nowhere restricts any right of the parties who admit the status of landlord and tenant. Had the intention of Legislature was to restrict the parties to only approach rent authority in case of execution of agreement or intimation, then it would have adopted sub-section (6) of Section 4 of Model Tenancy Act.”

Further, it held that the expression “shall” occurring in sub-section (3) of Section 4, which mandates the parties to provide information if the tenancy created before the commencement of the Act of 2021, was limited for providing information regarding the tenancy.

“It is thus clear that Act of 2021 unlike draft Model Tenancy Act provides for no penal consequences qua the failure of the landlord to intimate about the particulars of the tenancy to the Rent Authority, the requirement of intimation as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act of 2021, which is ordained by the expression "shall" must be held directory and consequent failure on part of the landlord to intimate about the particulars of the tenancy to the Rent Authority would not divest him of his rights to seek eviction on ground of personal need under the Act of 2021.”

Noting that Sections 9 & 10 of the Act empowered the rent authority to enhance the rent, the Court held that jurisdiction of rent authority under the Act could not be narrowed down only to cases of written agreement and its intimation to the authority. The Court held that the intention of legislature must be seen considering other provisions and the object of the provisions. It cannot be limited to reading and understanding of a single provision.

Regarding bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and the restriction of Rent Authorities' jurisdiction to tenancy agreements by virtue of Section 38 of the Act, the Court held

“Sub-section (2) of Section 38 is not a provision conferring jurisdiction upon rent authority, rather it circumscribes jurisdiction prescribing it to not venture into adjudication of dispute regarding title or ownership and only confines to dispute arising under tenancy agreement. It does not make jurisdiction dependent upon the execution of tenancy agreement, rather it shall have jurisdiction of such tenancies also where no agreement was entered between the parties but are still covered under the Act of 2021.”

It held that the rent authority could not divulge into a dispute regarding title and ownership of the property but could adjudicate on dispute arising between the landlord and tenant.

Accordingly, the Court held that the rent authority had the jurisdiction to deal with landlord's eviction application even if the landlord had failed to execute a tenancy agreement and failed to provide particulars of the tenancy.

Case Title: Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other Versus Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 626 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order