Allahabad High Court: Absence of Written Tenancy Agreement Does Not Bar Eviction Proceedings Under UP Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021

Case Title / Court / Bench / Date

Case: Writ Petitions filed by Canara Bank Branch Office and Others
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Decision Date: 16 December 2025
Statute Involved: Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021

---

Background of the Case

The issue before the Allahabad High Court was whether a landlord can file an eviction application before the Rent Authority under the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, when:

1. No written tenancy agreement was executed, and

2. The landlord failed to furnish tenancy particulars to the Rent Authority.

Earlier orders had rejected such eviction applications as non-maintainable, holding that absence of a written tenancy agreement ousted jurisdiction.

The petitioners (including Canara Bank) challenged these findings.

---

Key Legal Issue Before the Court

Whether the Rent Authority under the UP Tenancy Act, 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications in cases where:

• tenancy is unwritten, or

• no tenancy particulars are furnished.

---

Court’s Key Findings

The High Court held:

• The absence of a written tenancy agreement

• Or non-submission of tenancy particulars

does not bar the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority.

The Court rejected the view that proceedings are maintainable only where a written agreement is executed and registered.

---

Legislative Interpretation by the Court

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal emphasized that:

• The UP Legislature deliberately omitted rigid consequences present under the Central Model Tenancy Act.

• The intention was to avoid procedural technicalities frustrating landlord rights.

Court Observation

“This provision leads to the conclusion that jurisdiction of the Rent Authority under the Act of 2021 cannot be narrowed down only in cases of written agreement and its intimation to the Rent Authority.”

The Court clarified that:

• Statutory interpretation must consider the entire legislative framework

• Not a single isolated section

---

Statutory Provisions Examined

1. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021

Relevant sections considered:

• Section 4 & 5 – Execution of tenancy agreement

• Section 9(5) Proviso – Proceedings permissible even when agreement not filed

• Section 21 – Jurisdiction of Rent Authority in eviction applications

The Court noted that the Proviso to Section 9(5) preserved landlord rights even in unwritten tenancy situations.

This reflected the legislative intention to:

• Maintain substantive justice

• Avoid eviction disputes being dismissed on technical defects

---

Contrast With Central Model Tenancy Act

The Court highlighted that:

• The Central Act prescribes “fatal consequences” for non-registration of agreements

• The UP Legislature consciously deviated

Therefore:

• Landlords in Uttar Pradesh cannot be deprived of legal remedy

• Merely due to documentation lapses

---

Court’s Directions & Case Outcome

Orders Passed

1. Previous orders treating eviction applications as non-maintainable were set aside

2. Some matters were remanded for fresh consideration

3. In certain cases, eviction was upheld

4. Tenants were granted:

   • Six-month grace period to vacate

   • Conditional on filing an undertaking and clearing dues

The writ petitions were partly allowed.

---

Relevant Judicial Principles Cited

While the decision is largely statutory in nature, the Court reiterated broader principles governing:

• Jurisdiction of statutory tribunals

• Legislative intent interpretation

• Substance over technicality

The ruling aligns with established Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that:

• Procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights

• Courts must interpret tenancy laws in a manner balancing landlord-tenant interests

---

Constitutional and Policy Context

The Court’s reasoning was guided by:

• Fair access to statutory remedies

• Prevention of misuse of procedural defects

• Promotion of speedy adjudication of tenancy disputes

Indirectly engaging constitutional values under:

• Article 14 — Reasonableness and non-arbitrariness

• Article 300-A — Property rights protections

---

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies that:

• Landlords in Uttar Pradesh retain eviction rights

• Even where no written tenancy agreement exists

• Rent Authority jurisdiction is not conditional on formal documentation

It prevents tenants from using technical deficiencies:

• As a shield against eviction

• Where tenancy and occupation are otherwise admitted or proved

The ruling strengthens:

• Landlord access to Rent Authority

• Substantive justice in tenancy disputes

• Legislative intent of the 2021 Act

---

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court has provided an important interpretation of the UP Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 — ensuring that landlords are not denied eviction remedies merely due to absence of written tenancy agreements or non-submission of tenancy particulars.

The judgment reinforces that the Act must be applied:

• pragmatically,

• purposively,

• and in line with its objective of balancing landlord and tenant rights.

---