In a detailed ruling that settles a growing confusion under Uttar Pradesh’s new tenancy law, the Allahabad High Court has held that landlords are not barred from approaching the Rent Authority merely because no written tenancy agreement exists or because tenancy details were not intimated earlier.
The court made it clear that the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was designed to balance the rights of landlords and tenants - not to defeat legitimate eviction claims on technical grounds.
Background of the Case
The ruling came in a batch of connected matters, including petitions filed by Canara Bank, private firms, individual landlords, and tenants. All cases raised a common legal question:
Does the Rent Authority have jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications when there is no written tenancy agreement and when tenancy particulars were not filed earlier?
Several Rent Authorities across Uttar Pradesh had taken conflicting views. Some rejected eviction petitions outright, treating the absence of a written agreement as fatal. This led to a surge of challenges before the High Court.
To resolve this, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal heard all matters together and passed a common order.
Read also:- Moneycontrol Trademark Misuse: Delhi High Court Shuts Down WhatsApp Scam Networks
Court’s Observations
Tracing the legislative history from the old 1972 rent law to the 2021 Act, the court noted that earlier laws had heavily tilted in favour of tenants, freezing rents for decades and limiting landlords’ remedies.
The 2021 Act, the court said, was enacted to correct that imbalance.
Importantly, the bench observed that while the law encourages written tenancy agreements, it does not prescribe any punishment or legal disability if such an agreement is missing in older tenancies.
“The legislature consciously omitted any provision that would divest a landlord of his rights merely for not filing tenancy particulars,” the court noted.
The judgment emphasized that the word “shall” used in the Act regarding submission of tenancy details cannot automatically be read as mandatory. Without a clear penalty clause, the requirement remains directory, not compulsory.
The High Court categorically ruled that:
- Failure to execute a written tenancy agreement does not bar eviction proceedings.
- Failure to submit tenancy details before the Rent Authority does not take away jurisdiction.
- The Rent Authority can still hear eviction cases where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed.
As the bench put it,
“The Act of 2021 does not intend to punish landlords by denying them remedies merely due to non-intimation of tenancy particulars.”
The court also clarified an important difference between the Model Tenancy Act and the Uttar Pradesh law.
While the Model Act bars relief if tenancy information is not submitted, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature deliberately chose not to adopt that harsh consequence. Courts, the judge said, cannot insert penalties that lawmakers intentionally left out.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Income Tax Appeal in TCK Advisers Case, Upholds Transfer Pricing Relief
Final Decision
Answering the central issue, the High Court held that filing tenancy particulars with the Rent Authority is not a condition precedent for seeking eviction under the 2021 Act.
All pending matters were decided accordingly, with directions that Rent Authorities must entertain eviction applications even in cases of unwritten tenancies, provided the landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute.
The judgment brings much-needed clarity and is expected to reduce unnecessary litigation caused by conflicting interpretations of the tenancy law.
Case Title: Canara Bank Branch Office & Ors. vs Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh
Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. 626 of 2024 (with connected cases)
Case Type: Article 227 / Writ Petitions / SCC Revision
Decision Date: 16 December 2025
