The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of a Central Government notification extending the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and directed that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 shall continue to remain in force until further orders.
A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda passed the interim order while hearing a petition challenging the notification dated May 6, 2026, through which the Centre, invoking powers under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, extended the Assam Tenancy Act to Chandigarh with modifications and effectively replaced the existing rent control regime.
The petitioners contended that Section 87 empowers the Union Government only to extend enactments to Chandigarh and does not authorize it to repeal or substitute an existing law. It was further argued that the new regime transfers adjudicatory functions relating to rent and eviction disputes from judicial officers to executive authorities, raising concerns regarding the legality of such a framework.
Taking note of the challenge, the High Court observed that the question whether Section 87 permits repeal of an existing statute through executive notification requires examination. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, (1989) Supp (1) SCC 430, the Bench prima facie noted that the provision appears to permit extension of laws to fill gaps in the existing legal framework but does not authorize repeal or substitution of existing legislation.
The Court also found merit in the contention that rent and eviction disputes, which were previously adjudicated by judicial officers functioning as Rent Controllers, have now been placed before executive authorities. The Bench observed that this issue would have to be examined in light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning transfer of judicial functions to executive bodies.
A significant factor that weighed with the Court was the admitted position that, despite the notification having been issued nearly three weeks earlier, no rules had yet been framed for implementation of the new law, no rent authority had been notified, and the necessary infrastructure and staff required to administer the statute were not in place. As a result, persons seeking remedies relating to rent and eviction disputes were effectively left without any operational forum.
The Bench noted that approximately 30 to 50 rent-related cases are ordinarily instituted every day and observed that the public was being prejudiced because the 1949 Act stood repealed while the new statutory mechanism had not become functional. The Court remarked that taking away an existing remedy without providing an effective alternative warranted judicial intervention to ensure that litigants were not left remediless.
Considering the jurisdictional challenge, the absence of implementing rules and infrastructure, and the inconvenience being caused to the public, the Court directed that the notification dated May 6, 2026 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing. It further ordered that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 shall continue to operate, enabling parties to pursue rent and eviction remedies under the existing framework.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 14, 2026. The Court clarified that its interim order would not prevent the authorities from creating the necessary infrastructure or framing rules required for implementation of the new law in the meantime.
