Unwritten Tenancies No Bar to Eviction: Allahabad High Court Affirms Rent Authority’s Powers Under UP Tenancy Law
By Rajesh Pandey
In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for landlords and tenants alike, the Allahabad High Court has held that the absence of a written tenancy agreement—or the failure to furnish tenancy particulars—does not strip the rent authority of its jurisdiction under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
The court made it clear that landlords cannot be denied access to statutory remedies merely because a tenancy was unwritten or because procedural formalities relating to intimation were not complied with.
In effect, the rent authority remains empowered to entertain eviction applications even in cases where no formal tenancy agreement exists, and the landlord has not submitted tenancy particulars.
Legislature’s Intent Cannot Be Defeated by Technicalities.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal underscored that the state legislature had consciously departed from the Central Model Tenancy Act by omitting provisions that imposed “fatal consequences” for failure to intimate tenancy details.
This, the court observed, was a deliberate policy choice to ensure that substantive rights—particularly a landlord’s right to seek eviction—are not defeated by documentation lapses.
“This provision leads to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the rent authority under the Act of 2021 cannot be narrowed down only to cases of a written agreement and its intimation,” the court observed.
Justice Agarwal added that if the legislature intended to restrict access to the rent authority solely to cases involving written agreements, the proviso to Section 9(5) would not have found a place in the statute.
The court stressed that legislative intent cannot be gleaned from an isolated provision. Instead, it must be understood in the context of the Act as a whole, its object, subject matter, and the broader framework governing landlord-tenant relations.
Core Question Before the Court
The batch of writ petitions before the High Court raised a common legal issue: whether the rent authority constituted under the 2021 Act has the jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications filed by landlords when no tenancy agreement has been executed, and when the landlord has also failed to submit tenancy particulars to the authority.
Arguments in Favour of Landlords
Counsel appearing for the landlords contended that the 2021 Act was designed to strike a careful balance between the rights of property owners and tenants.
They argued that the legislature intentionally avoided prescribing punitive consequences for failure to intimate tenancy details so that landlords are not left remediless.
According to them, excluding unwritten tenancies from the rent authority’s purview would frustrate the very objective of the law and encourage tenants to exploit technical loopholes.
Court’s Interpretation of the Tenancy Framework
The High Court analysed Section 4 of the Act and noted that the statutory scheme recognises both fresh tenancies and pre-existing tenancies.
While written agreements are mandatory for tenancies created after the Act came into force, the legislature was conscious that older tenancies often rest on oral arrangements.
Accordingly, the Act provides that where a written agreement exists, it should be jointly submitted to the rent authority. Where no agreement has been executed, parties are expected to enter into one annotifyte the authority.
Crucially, the proviso clarifies that even if parties fail to jointly present the agreement or are unable to reach consensus, separately furnished tenancy particulars would suffice to establish the tenancy relationship.
Relief Granted and Directions Issued
Applying this interpretation, the High Court set aside earlier orders that had dismissed eviction applications as non-maintainable solely due to the absence of written tenancy agreements.
In some cases, matters were remanded to the rent authority for fresh adjudication, while in others, eviction orders were upheld on the merits.
In a balanced approach, the court also granted relief to certain tenants by allowing them six months to vacate the premises, subject to filing a formal undertaking and clearing all outstanding dues.
Outcome of the Case
The judgment, delivered on December 16, partly allowed the writ petitions filed by Canara Bank’s branch office and other petitioners, reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses should not eclipse substantive justice.
Legal experts say the ruling brings much-needed clarity to the workings of the UP Tenancy Act and ensures that rent authorities remain accessible forums for dispute resolution, even in cases rooted in unwritten or informally documented tenancies.
#AllahabadHighCourt #TenancyLaw #UPTenancyAct2021 #RentAuthority #EvictionLaw #LandlordTenantDisputes #JudicialClarity #PropertyRights
