Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Krishna Mohan Asthana, Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Himanshu Mishra, Punya Sheel Pandey, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal, Vipul Raj Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Saurabh Patel, Prashant Pandey, Sabya Sachee Rai, Suneel Kumar Rai, Kunal Shah

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:

1. The legal proceedings involve multiple petitions and cases concerning the jurisdiction and maintainability of eviction and rent disputes under the Act of 2021, as well as the applicability of previous laws and agreements (!) (!) .

2. The legislative history indicates a conscious departure from previous rent control laws, emphasizing the importance of tenancy agreements and the role of rent authorities in recording and verifying tenancy relationships, whether written or oral (!) (!) .

3. The Act of 2021 introduces provisions for tenancy agreements, including the requirement for agreements to be informed to the rent authority within specified timeframes, with different rules for new and old tenancies, including those created before the commencement of the Act (!) (!) .

4. The Act recognizes that failure to submit particulars or execute tenancy agreements does not necessarily bar a landlord from initiating eviction proceedings or approaching the rent authority, especially where the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or established through other evidence (!) (!) .

5. There is a deliberate legislative choice to omit certain penalties or consequences for non-compliance with the provisions related to informing the rent authority about tenancy agreements, indicating that such omissions are intentional and do not imply that the provisions are mandatory in a penal sense (!) (!) .

6. The jurisdiction of rent authorities is limited to disputes arising under tenancy agreements and does not extend to questions of ownership or title, which remain within the domain of civil courts or other appropriate forums (!) (!) .

7. The courts have clarified that non-compliance with the requirement to inform or execute tenancy agreements does not automatically render proceedings invalid or non-maintainable; rather, the provisions are primarily procedural and directory in nature (!) (!) .

8. The legal framework maintains that proceedings initiated prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2021 are generally preserved unless explicitly abated, and the jurisdiction of civil courts for suits related to rent and eviction remains intact unless expressly barred (!) (!) .

9. The interpretation of the word "shall" in the relevant provisions indicates that, in context, it is not always mandatory in a strict penal sense but may be directory, depending on the legislative intent and the object of the law (!) (!) (!) .

10. The overall legislative scheme aims to balance the rights of landlords and tenants, promote formalization of tenancy relationships, and facilitate speedy resolution of disputes, while allowing for proceedings to continue even in cases of unwritten agreements or failure to submit particulars to rent authorities (!) (!) (!) .

11. The courts have consistently held that the absence of specific penalties or consequences for non-compliance does not invalidate proceedings, and procedural provisions should be interpreted in a manner that furthers the legislative intent of effective dispute resolution (!) (!) .

12. In conclusion, the jurisdiction of rent authorities under the Act of 2021 to entertain applications filed by landlords, even in cases where tenancy agreements are unwritten or particulars have not been filed, is affirmed. The provisions are to be interpreted as enabling, procedural, and directory, rather than mandatory with penal consequences for non-compliance (!) (!) (!) .

13. The legal process emphasizes that proceedings initiated under the Act of 2021 are maintainable and that existing civil suits or proceedings related to rent and eviction are generally not barred unless explicitly specified, allowing for a continued and integrated approach to tenancy disputes (!) (!) (!) .

14. The judgments clarify that the legislative intent is to ensure that the relationship of landlord and tenant is recognized and protected, and procedural lapses such as non-filing or non-execution of agreements do not automatically deprive a party of their rights under the law (!) (!) .

15. Overall, the legal framework and judicial interpretations aim to uphold the rights of both landlords and tenants, ensure procedural flexibility, and prevent technicalities from obstructing justice in tenancy disputes.