Allahabad High Court: UP Tenancy Act 2021 Sections 8, 9, 10, 38, 42 Struck Down

• The Allahabad High Court invalidated key sections of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
• Sections 8, 9, and 10 were struck down for being repugnant to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding rent payment and revision.
• Sections 38 and 42 were declared ultra vires due to their attempt to override procedural laws without prior Presidential assent.
• The ruling came in the case of Inder Bhushan Sawhney v Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Other.
• This decision means central laws like the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will continue to govern rent and procedural aspects in UP.

The court's judgment underscores the constitutional principle that state laws cannot supersede central legislation without specific presidential approval, particularly when dealing with subjects on the Concurrent List.

The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, invalidating several crucial provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi declared Sections 8, 9, 10, 38, and 42 of the state legislation to be ultra vires. This decision, stemming from the case of Inder Bhushan Sawhney v Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Other, found that the impugned sections were inconsistent with existing central statutes and had not received the necessary Presidential assent.

The court's judgment underscores the constitutional principle that state laws cannot supersede central legislation without specific presidential approval, particularly when dealing with subjects on the Concurrent List. The invalidated sections touched upon fundamental aspects of tenancy, including rent determination, revision mechanisms, and procedural frameworks for dispute resolution within urban premises.

A primary reason for the invalidation of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, was their direct conflict with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. These particular sections of the state law dealt specifically with the payment of rent and its subsequent revision. The High Court observed that while tenancy agreements under the Transfer of Property Act might allow for rent adjustments, the state Act introduced provisions for mandatory upward rent revisions at specified rates.

Furthermore, Section 10 of the UP Tenancy Act established a process for determining revised rent in instances of disagreement between landlords and tenants, or lessors and lessees. The bench explicitly stated that these stipulations were entirely at odds with the existing framework provided by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which governs such matters at a central level. This repugnancy formed a core basis for declaring these rent-related provisions unconstitutional.

Beyond the substantive conflicts concerning rent, the Allahabad High Court also identified issues with Sections 38 and 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. These sections were deemed problematic because they attempted to supersede established procedural norms outlined in central and state laws, specifically the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the UP Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. The court held that such an override of existing procedural statutes could not be legally effective without obtaining prior Presidential assent.

The requirement for Presidential assent is a critical constitutional safeguard, ensuring that state legislation does not inadvertently or intentionally undermine central laws, especially when both operate in areas of concurrent legislative power. By attempting to alter procedural aspects governed by other acts without this crucial approval, Sections 38 and 42 were found to be operating beyond the state legislature's immediate authority, leading to their declaration as ultra vires.

This landmark decision by the Allahabad High Court has significant ramifications for tenancy and property disputes across Uttar Pradesh. With key provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, now invalidated, legal practitioners and property owners must revert to relying on the foundational principles and procedures established by central legislation. The ruling effectively means that aspects related to rent determination, revision, and certain procedural matters will continue to be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and other relevant procedural laws, rather than the recently enacted state tenancy law.

The judgment reinforces the supremacy of central laws and the necessity of adhering to constitutional protocols, such as securing Presidential assent, when state legislatures venture into domains that intersect with existing federal statutes. This outcome ensures a clearer legal landscape, albeit one that now requires a re-evaluation of strategies for addressing tenancy issues in the state, emphasizing the enduring relevance of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Lawyers advising on tenancy and property disputes in Uttar Pradesh must note that key provisions of the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, particularly those concerning rent revision and procedural aspects, are now invalid. This necessitates reliance on the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and other existing procedural laws for advising clients on rent determination and dispute resolution in the state.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.