Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 549

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Akhilesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Sahgal - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 5153 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. - 5155 of 2026
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent: Mohit Kumar Shukla

The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 establishes a specialized adjudicatory framework for urban tenancies. The absence of a written agreement does not oust the Rent Authority's jurisdiction, as formalization provisions are regulatory rather than conditions precedent for maintainability when the tenancy relationship is otherwise proved.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 4, 9, 21, 38 and 42 - Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - Maintainability of proceedings - Absence of written tenancy agreement - Whether the Rent Authority is rendered incompetent to entertain eviction proceedings in cases of oral or month-to-month tenancies - The 2021 Act is a self-contained code intended to establish a specialized adjudicatory mechanism for urban tenancy disputes - The requirement for a written tenancy agreement is regulatory and evidentiary in character, intended to promote transparency and certainty, and does not constitute a condition precedent for the maintainability of proceedings before the Rent Authority - In cases where the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted or established, the Rent Authority retains jurisdiction despite the absence of formal written documentation. (Paras 91, 93, 114 and 116)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Purposive construction - Role of procedural requirements - Procedural prescriptions intended to facilitate the operation of a special enactment should not be construed in a manner that defeats the substantive remedial framework of the statute - An interpretation ousting the jurisdiction of specialized forums due to procedural non-compliance would frustrate the legislative intent and create a remedial vacuum. (Paras 45, 85 and 92)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were tenants in occupation of premises under month-to-month or oral tenancy arrangements, challenged the maintainability of eviction proceedings initiated by the landlords before the Rent Authority. It was contended that in the absence of a registered or written tenancy agreement as contemplated under the 2021 Act, the Rent Authority lacked jurisdiction, and the disputes should instead be relegated to the Court of Small Causes under the existing civil law framework.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the 2021 Act marks a legislative shift toward a self-contained, specialized adjudicatory regime. The absence of a written tenancy agreement does not result in the divestment of jurisdiction of the Rent Authority. The court affirmed that Section 4 serves to formalize and record tenancies, but non-compliance does not create a jurisdictional bar where the landlord-tenant relationship is otherwise proven.

Issues: Whether the absence of a written tenancy agreement renders proceedings before the Rent Authority non-maintainable, and whether such disputes are exclusively triable by the Court of Small Causes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Authority possesses jurisdiction to entertain eviction proceedings even in the absence of a written tenancy agreement, provided the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted or established. The procedural requirements of the Act for formalizing tenancies are regulatory in nature and do not act as an exclusionary jurisdictional bar.

Result: Petitions dismissed. Impugned orders affirmed.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the jurisdictional conflict regarding maintenance of tenancies without written agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties' contentions on statutory interpretation of the 2021 act and necessity of larger bench. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. analysis of statutory scheme and judicial precedents rejecting the need for a larger bench. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81)
4. court's reasoning on the non-jurisdictional nature of procedural compliance under the 2021 act. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114)
5. unwritten tenancies are governed by the 2021 act, and jurisdiction is maintained despite lack of formal writing. (Para 115 , 116 , 117 , 118)
6. final order affirming maintainability of petitions before the rent authority and dismissing tenant challenges. (Para 119 , 120 , 121)

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Mohit Kumar Shukla and Sri Ram M Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents; and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the interpretation of the statutory provisions involved.

Factual Background

2. These two petitions raise a common and recurring question concerning the scope and operation of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, Act, 2021, namely, whether the mere absence of a written tenancy agreement renders proceedings before the Rent Authority non-maintainable and relegates the landlord to the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. The issue assumes considerable significance, for its resolution depends upon the true construction and interplay of Sections 4, 21 and 38 of the Act, 2021 read in the context of the overall statutory scheme and legislative purpose underlying the enactment. The controversy is of particular importance in the State, especially in view of the large number of urban tenancy arrangements that continue to subsist on oral understandings, month-to-month occupations, rent receipts, or long-standing informal arrangements unsupported by formal written agreements.

3. In the first petition, petitioner-tenant, Akhilesh Kumar, is in occupation of Shop No. 18, Gandhi Road, Mohalla Chaudhariyana, Bada Bazar, Jhansi, at a monthly rent of Rupees 3,000/-. Respondent-landlord, Sanjay Sehgal, instituted Rent Case No.47 of 2024 under Sections 10 and 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021 before the Rent Authority, Jhansi, seeking eviction, arrears of rent, and damages for unauthorized use. The landlord pleaded that the tenancy was month-to-month and that no fresh tenancy agreement had been executed between the parties. Upon notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed an objection/application dated 21.10.2024 contending that no written or registered tenancy agreement existed and, therefore, proceedings under the Act, 2021 were not maintainable; jurisdiction, if any, lay before the Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. It was urged that the landlord had not complied with the requirements contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. The said objection was rejected by the Rent Authority vide order dated 14.08.2025 holding the proceedings maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant preferred Miscellaneous Civil (Rent Control) Appeal No.85 of 2025 before the Rent Tribunal, Jhansi, which was dismissed by judgment dated 19.01.2026, affirming the order of the Rent Authority.

4. In the other petition, petitioner, Smt. Suma