HC Bar, District Bar challenge extension of Assam Tenancy Act to Chandigarh

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Chetan Mittal, assisted by advocates Shifali Goyal and Ritvik Garg, submitted that the Centre had invoked Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which empowers it to extend to Chandigarh any law in force in Punjab. However, the petitioners contended that the provision does not confer powers upon the Centre to repeal, amend or enact laws in conflict with an existing law applicable to the Union Territory.

The petitioners relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912), reported as 1951 AIR Supreme Court 332, and the judgment in Ramesh Birich and Others v Union of India and Others, 1989 RCR (Rent) 79, pertaining to Chandigarh’s Rent Act, to argue that the impugned notification is unconstitutional.

Another major ground of challenge relates to the authorities created under the new law. The petitioners pointed out that under the Assam Tenancy Act, the Tehsildar has been designated as the Rent Authority under Section 30, while the Additional Deputy Commissioner has been appointed as the Appellate Authority/Rent Court under Section 33. Under the earlier Rent Act, such matters were adjudicated by judicial officers, with the Sub Judge First Class acting as Rent Controller and the District Judge as the Appellate Authority.

The petitioners submitted that “as per settled constitutional principles in numerous landmark judgments governing the field with regard to separation of powers between executive and judiciary, the adjudicatory powers must be exercised by judges with a judicial mind”.

They further argued that judicial functions cannot be delegated to executive officers, particularly when proceedings under the impugned Act have themselves been defined as “judicial proceedings” and powers under the Code of Civil Procedure have been vested under Section 31.

The petitioners also contended that the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, does not take into account Chandigarh’s existing legal and developmental framework. According to them, the definitions and exemptions in the Act, including those relating to industrial premises, hotels, lodgings, inns and dharamshalas, do not correspond with Chandigarh’s local development laws, where building use is defined differently and is not merely user-based.

Another ground raised in the petition is the alleged non-consideration of objections. The petitioners stated that after objections were invited under the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Bar had submitted written objections. They claimed that although a communication dated May 14, 2025, stated that their objections had been forwarded, the impugned notification was issued on May 6, 2026 “without hearing or addressing even a single objection”.

The petitioners further submitted that the legislation reflected “total non-application of mind” and failed to provide adequate protection to tenants. They pointed to provisions under which a tenant who does not vacate premises after expiry or termination of tenancy may be liable to pay double rent for the first two months and four times the rent thereafter, contending that such provisions are “too harsh and penal in nature”.

It has also been argued that Rent Acts are beneficial legislations primarily intended to protect tenants, whereas the impugned notification allegedly enables landlords to seek eviction on vague grounds and claim double or four times the agreed rent.

Terming the matter urgent, the petitioners contended that no fresh landlord-tenant disputes can presently be filed or adjudicated because the existing Rent Act stands repealed while the new law remains non-functional in the absence of rules.

They submitted that even in Assam, though the Act came into force on September 27, 2021, the rules were framed only on January 28, 2026. The petitioners also claimed that the repeal and savings clause is defective as it protects pending litigation but does not clarify the status of existing tenancies.