The Single Bench of Hon'ble Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava of Allahabad High Court has authoritatively settled a recurring and significant question under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, holding that the mere absence of a written tenancy agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority where the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted or otherwise established.
Two petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution arose from eviction proceedings instituted by landlords before the Rent Authority, Jhansi. In the first matter, the landlord sought eviction of a commercial tenant paying ₹3,000 per month on a month-to-month basis. In the second, eviction was sought on grounds of default and personal necessity against a tenant claiming occupancy through predecessors. In both cases, the tenants raised a preliminary objection that since no written tenancy agreement existed between the parties, proceedings before the Rent Authority were not maintainable, and the landlords ought to approach the Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. Both the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal rejected these objections, which were then challenged before the High Court.
The Petitioners (Tenants) has contended that the Act, 2021 operates exclusively through writtentenancy agreements submitted under Section 4, and the Rent Authority's jurisdiction under Section 38(2) is confined strictly to such registered agreements. Reliance was placed on Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chandra Kanodia and Raman Arora v. Susheel Kumar, and a reference to a Larger Bench was sought citing divergence among coordinate Bench decisions.
The Respondents (Landlords) has argued that the Act nowhere excludes oral tenancies, that Section 4 is regulatory and not jurisdictional, and that once the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted, the Rent Authority's jurisdiction cannot be defeated. Reliance was placed on Vishal Rastogi v. Rent Controller and Canara Bank Branch Office v. Ashok Kumar.
State of UP, through the Additional Advocate General, supported the maintainability of proceedings under the Act, 2021 even in cases of unwritten tenancies and highlighted that the Supreme Court had set aside the High Court's judgment in Lavendra Singh — effectively disapproving the restrictive view — and that the UP Legislature consciously omitted the disabling clause present in the Model Tenancy Act when enacting Section 4(7).
The Court held that Section 4 is regulatory, evidentiary and enabling in character not a jurisdictional precondition. It drew a crucial distinction between proof of tenancy and existence of tenancy, holding that an admitted landlord-tenant relationship cannot be efface merely due to absence of formal documentation. The Court further observed that accepting the tenant's argument would create a remedial vacuum — with the Rent Authority excluded for want of written agreement, and civil courts simultaneously barred under Section 38(1) — a consequence the Legislature never intended.
On the plea for reference to a Larger Bench, the Court declined, holding that Amit Gupta and Raman Arora dealt with survival of Small Causes Court proceedings, while Amarjeet Singh and Canara Bank addressed the Rent Authority's jurisdiction — two distinct though cognate inquiries with no irreconcilable conflict in ratio.
Case Details: M.A. 227 No. 5153 & 5155 of 2026
Bench: Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Petitioners: Akhilesh Kumar & Smt. Suman Dwivedi
Respondents: Sanjay Sahgal & Sanjeev Sahani & Anr.
Picture Source :
