In a landmark batch ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared Sections 8, 9, 10, 38 and 42 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, ultra vires for want of Presidential assent, holding that premises tenancy legislation falls within the Concurrent List and the Repealed U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, springs back to life.
The Court held that where a State legislature enacts a premises tenancy law that is referable to the Concurrent List and is repugnant to pre-existing Parliamentary enactments such as the Transfer of Property Act and the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, such State law can only be enforced if it has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. In the absence of such assent, the repugnant provisions are void, and the prior State enactment that was repealed by the unconstitutional law revives by its own force.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the legislative competence to enact premises tenancy legislation lies in Entry 6 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, and not in Entry 18 of List II (State List), thereby settling the apparent conflict between the Constitution Bench decisions in Indu Bhushan Bose vs. Rama Sundari Devi [(1969) 2 SCC 289] and Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586].
The Court also observed that the State law touching upon transfer of property other than agricultural land, which is repugnant to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 read with the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, can only prevail with prior Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Further, the Court emphasised that Section 42 of the 2021 Act, which purported to give the enactment overriding effect over all other laws, was declared unconstitutional because no State enactment can, without Presidential assent, override a Parliamentary enactment occupying the Concurrent field.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the 2021 Act, which enabled revision and determination of rent outside the terms of the lease and at “prevailing market value”, were held repugnant to the substantive law framework of the Transfer of Property Act and the procedural framework of the SCC Act. Since the 2021 Act itself had repealed the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and the repealing enactment has now been declared ultra vires, the 1972 Act springs back to life, restoring the prior regime of rent control with Presidential assent.
Briefly, a batch of sixteen petitions was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021), along with the orders passed by the Rent Authority under Section 10 of the said Act that had the effect of enhancing rent at the instance of the landlord-respondents. In some petitions, consequential challenge was also raised to execution and eviction proceedings.
The lead case involved a lease originally granted by the Municipal Corporation, Agra in 1947 to the grandfather of the respondent over two plots of land ad-measuring 626.5 square yards at Raja ki Mandi, MG Road crossing, Agra, for a term of 30 years, with an extension clause. The lease was renewed for a further period of 30 years up to May 30, 2007, and an eviction suit was instituted on Apr 19, 2008.
During the pendency of those proceedings, the Impugned Act came into force with effect from Aug 24, 2021. Thereafter, an application under Section 10(4) of the Impugned Act was moved for fixation of provisional rent, and the Rent Authority passed an ex-parte order enhancing the provisional rent from the pre-existing INR 1,000 per month to INR 750 per square feet per month. The Rent Authority reiterated that order on May 27, 2024. Though the challenge to the legislative competence of the State legislature was not directly pleaded in all petitions, no objection was raised by the State or the private respondents on that count at the stage of oral hearing.
