HC stays notification extending Assam Tenancy Act to Chandigarh

The petition was heard by a division bench comprising Justices H S Sethi and Deepak Manchanda, which issued notice of motion to the respondents and sought their response.

Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, assisted by Advocates Shifali Goyal and Ritvik Garg, appeared for the petitioners. They argued that the Centre had invoked Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which empowers the Central government to extend to Chandigarh a law in force in Punjab, but does not confer power to repeal, amend or substitute an existing law already applicable to the Union Territory.

The petitioners contended that the notification was therefore unconstitutional.

The petition also questioned the adjudicatory mechanism under the Assam Tenancy Act. It was submitted that Section 30 of the Act designates the Tehsildar as the rent authority and Section 33 designates the Additional Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority or Rent Court.

The petitioners argued that rent disputes in Chandigarh had traditionally been adjudicated by judicial officers under the 1949 Act and that vesting such powers in executive authorities had previously faced judicial scrutiny.

The bar bodies also contended that several provisions of the Assam tenancy law were impracticable for Chandigarh, and were inconsistent with the city’s planning and regulatory framework. They also raised concerns regarding the repeal-and-saving clause, arguing that while pending proceedings under the 1949 Act were protected, the notification did not clarify the legal position regarding fresh causes of action or subsisting tenancies.

Another plank of the challenge was that although the notification had come into force, the Rules under the new Act had not yet been framed. And the authorities and infrastructure required for its implementation had not been notified either. According to the petitioners, this had created a legal vacuum affecting the landlords as well as the tenants.

After hearing the submissions, the court recorded prima facie satisfaction on the issues raised by the petitioners, including the contention that Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act does not confer a power of repeal.

The court also directed that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, would continue to govern rent matters in Chandigarh, noting the conceded position that the Rules under the Assam Tenancy Act had not yet been framed, the Rent Authority had not been notified, and the necessary implementation infrastructure was not in place.