The Allahabad High Court has struck down core sections of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, in a ruling that impacts property owners and tenants across the state. The court invalidated Sections 8, 9, 10, 38, and 42 for lacking the mandatory Presidential assent required when state laws conflict with central legislation.
Why the Court Struck Down the Rules
The decision, delivered by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, centered on petitions challenging the state law’s handling of rent revisions, dispute resolutions, and eviction procedures. The court found that the Uttar Pradesh legislature had bypassed the doctrine of repugnancy under the Indian Constitution, which requires state laws to align with central laws in concurrent subjects.
The bench declared the sections ultra vires, meaning they exceeded the legislature’s legal authority. The ruling shows the need for state housing reforms to harmonize with established central statutes.
The Clash Over Rent and Eviction
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the state law allowed for upward rent revisions and gave authorities the power to determine revised rent during disputes. The court noted this conflicted with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which prohibits unilateral rent increases outside agreed-upon lease terms.
The state law also introduced broader grounds for eviction, such as non-payment, structural repairs, and personal need by legal heirs. These changes created new rights and liabilities for landlords and tenants, clashing with the Transfer of Property Act.
Procedural Overreach and Special Tribunals
The 2021 Act attempted to overhaul dispute resolution by creating Rent Authorities and Rent Tribunals. Sections 38 and 42 sought to override procedures in the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the UP Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. The High Court ruled that establishing these parallel forums without Presidential assent created procedural repugnance.
This ruling highlights the delicate balance between state and central laws in areas of shared jurisdiction.
While the ruling invalidates these sections moving forward, the court has safeguarded completed legal proceedings and rent agreements processed under the 2021 Act.
Leave a Reply