In a landmark verdict that significantly impacts property owners and tenants across Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has struck down crucial provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The ruling determined that key sections governing rent revision, rent determination, and eviction procedures are in direct conflict with prevailing central laws and cannot stand without mandatory constitutional approval.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi delivered the decision on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2021 state enactment. The petitioners had raised objections against orders and procedures initiated by Rent Authorities, particularly concerning rent increases, recovery actions, and eviction proceedings.
At the heart of the legal issue was the constitutional requirement under Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution. Because the subject matter falls under the Concurrent List where both the State Legislature and the Parliament possess legislative competence any state law conflicting with central statutes must secure Presidential assent to take precedence. The court found that the state legislature had failed to obtain Presidential assent for the 2021 law.
The High Court declared Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act invalid, noting that they created rights and obligations regarding rent payment and revision that were incompatible with Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Under the central framework, landlords cannot unilaterally revise rent outside agreed contractual terms, whereas the 2021 state law introduced statutory mechanisms permitting adjustments and additional eviction grounds beyond the lease contract.
Furthermore, the bench examined the dispute resolution framework under the state act and struck down Sections 38 and 42 as unconstitutional. The judges held that these sections created alternative forums through Rent Authorities and Rent Tribunals that bypassed established judicial procedures under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, and the UP Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, without necessary central approval.
Rather than invalidating the entire tenancy statute, the court applied the doctrine of severability, removing only the specific provisions that directly clashed with existing parliamentary legislation. This approach leaves the unaffected framework of the 2021 enactment intact while stripping away the conflicting enforcement and rent-fixing mechanisms.
To prevent legal chaos and protect administrative certainty, the High Court clarified that previously concluded proceedings under the 2021 law where validity had not been challenged as well as existing rent agreements and revisions already settled, will remain legally protected and undisturbed.
This judgment sets an essential constitutional boundary on state-level property regulations, clarifying that while states can draft special tenancy frameworks, statutory rules regarding rent control, landlord-tenant obligations, and eviction disputes must align with established national laws unless formally granted Presidential assent.