Bench holds State Legislature's tenancy law repugnant to Transfer of Property Act and Small Causes Court Act; repealed 1972 Act revives automatically
In a landmark decision dated 21 August 2026, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi, struck down key provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (UP Act No.16 of 2021) as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Court held that Sections 8, 9, 10, 38, and 42 of the Act were enacted without obtaining the mandatory Presidential assent required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, as the Act was repugnant to existing Parliamentary enactments such as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), and the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (SCC Act) read with the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972.
The petitions before the Court challenged the validity of the UP Tenancy Act and various orders passed by Rent Authorities under Section 10 of the Impugned Act, which dealt with revision and determination of rent and eviction of tenants. The Court examined the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the tenancy law, the repugnancy between the Impugned Act and Parliamentary laws, and the effect of invalidating the Act on existing tenancy laws in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court reaffirmed the binding precedent laid down in the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi (1969), which held that laws regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant with respect to houses and buildings fall under Entries 6, 7, and 13 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, not Entry 18 of List II (State List) relating to land. The Court distinguished the later Supreme Court decision in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), which dealt with a different legal issue and did not conflict with Indu Bhushan Bose.
Critically, the Court noted that the UP Tenancy Act conflicted with substantive provisions of the TPA and procedural provisions of the SCC Act and the Civil Laws Act, all of which had been enacted with prior Presidential assent. The absence of such assent for the 2021 Act meant that the provisions overriding Parliamentary laws were constitutionally invalid.
On substantive repugnancy, the Court observed that the Impugned Act introduced rent revision and determination mechanisms and eviction grounds that were inconsistent with the TPA, which governs leases and tenancy rights, including notice requirements and termination. Procedurally, the Act created Rent Authorities and Tribunals that conflicted with the jurisdiction and procedures established under the SCC Act and Civil Laws Act. Section 42 of the Impugned Act, which sought to give it overriding effect over all other laws, was declared unconstitutional without Presidential assent.
The Court also referred to authoritative Supreme Court decisions on repugnancy principles and legislative competence, underscoring that State laws conflicting with Parliamentary laws in the Concurrent List require Presidential assent to be valid.
Importantly, the Court held that invalidation of the 2021 Act would not create a legislative vacuum. Since the Impugned Act repealed the earlier U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Repealed Act), that repealed statute revives automatically upon invalidation of the 2021 Act, as per the Supreme Court’s guidance in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024) and State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011). Thus, tenancy relations will continue to be governed by the 1972 Act along with the TPA and SCC Act.
The Court quashed all impugned orders passed under the 2021 Act’s provisions and clarified that any proceedings or rent agreements finalized under the 2021 Act before the judgment, without challenge, shall remain protected and enforceable under the revived 1972 Act and existing laws.
This ruling clarifies the constitutional limits on State tenancy legislation and the necessity for prior Presidential assent when State laws conflict with Parliamentary enactments. It also resolves conflicting interpretations regarding legislative competence over tenancy laws, endorsing the Indu Bhushan Bose precedent as binding.
Bottom Line :
Legislative competence and repugnancy - Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 challenged as ultra vires for lack of Presidential assent - Held, legislative competence to enact tenancy laws regarding buildings and houses traceable to Entries 6, 7 and 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule, not Entry 18 of List II - Repugnancy with Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) and Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (SCC Act) read with Civil Laws Act, Sections 8, 9, 10, 38 and 42 of Impugned Act declared ultra vires for overriding Parliamentary laws without Presidential assent - Repealed Act revives upon invalidation of Impugned Act - Provisions of Impugned Act creating rent revision and eviction powers inconsistent with TPA and SCC Act - Individual orders under Impugned Act quashed.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (Sections 8, 9, 10, 38, 42), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, Constitution of India (Articles 246, 254, 323B), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Inder Bhushan Sawhney v. Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead), (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2965668
