Introduction
The Allahabad High Court has clarified a point in tenancy law under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The court ruled that a landlord can file an eviction application even if there is no written tenancy agreement. The absence of a formal agreement or failure to provide tenancy details to the rent authority does not stop the authority from taking up a landlord’s eviction case. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal in a set of matters, including Canara Bank Branch Office v. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh. This ruling helps end confusion about when a rent authority has jurisdiction to hear eviction applications, especially in older or informal tenancies.
Facts of the Case
In this matter, a landlord filed a suit in the Small Causes Court seeking eviction of a tenant and rent arrears. The landlord alleged that the tenant had made major changes to the rented property without consent. The landlord did not execute a formal written tenancy agreement. The landlord also did not submit the details of the tenancy to the rent authority as required by Section 4 of the 2021 Act. The tenant challenged the landlord’s suit. The tenant argued that after the 2021 Act came into force, civil courts could no longer deal with eviction cases under Section 38 of the Act. The tenant said the suit should be dismissed because the landlord failed to file details of the tenancy with the rent authority. The civil court rejected the tenant’s objection. The tenant then moved the Allahabad High Court by a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
What the Court Held
The High Court framed a central question: whether a rent authority has jurisdiction to hear a landlord’s eviction application when no written tenancy agreement was executed and when the landlord failed to submit the tenancy particulars. The court examined the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 and compared it with the Model Tenancy Act prepared by the Central Government. The court found an important difference. In the Model Tenancy Act, failure to submit tenancy information can bar any party from claiming relief. In contrast, the Uttar Pradesh Act does not create such a bar. It does not strip the landlord or tenant of their right to relief just because they did not file tenancy details.
The court observed that Section 4 of the Act encourages a written agreement and, where parties cannot agree, requires them to submit tenancy details. But this section does not say the rent authority loses jurisdiction if no written agreement exists or if details are missing. The High Court stressed that the word “shall” in Section 4(3) is directory and not mandatory. This means that the failure to furnish tenancy particulars does not destroy the landlord’s right to bring an eviction claim.
The court also interpreted Section 38 of the Act, which bars civil courts from dealing with tenancy matters covered by the Act. The High Court held that Section 38 does not grant jurisdiction to the rent authority. Rather, it limits the authority to tenancy disputes and prevents it from deciding title or ownership issues. It does not confine jurisdiction to only those cases where a written agreement was executed or submitted. Even where no written agreement exists, or no particulars were filed, the rent authority can determine disputes arising out of admitted landlord-tenant relationships covered by the Act.
The court thus upheld the decision of the rent authority and the Small Causes Court and rejected the tenant’s challenge. It confirmed that eviction proceedings can continue.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment brings clarity to landlords, tenants, and legal practitioners on how rent authorities must approach eviction cases under the 2021 Act. First, landlords are no longer blocked from seeking eviction just because they did not execute a formal written agreement. Second, the ruling eliminates unnecessary procedural hurdles that otherwise could delay justice and increase litigation costs. Third, this interpretation supports the legislative intent behind the Act, to provide a streamlined, fair, and effective mechanism for resolving tenancy disputes without rigid technical barriers. Fourth, tenants and landlords in older or informal tenancy relationships now know they can still approach the rent authority for eviction or rent disputes, despite lacking formal documentation. Finally, the ruling discourages forum shopping. Landlords cannot be forced into civil courts just because they did not file tenancy particulars with the authority.
