Amidst the opposition by the advocates, a petition has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the implementation of Assam Tenancy Act in Chandigarh by the government.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association prayed before the High Court to quash Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vide notification dated May 6, whereby the respondent-administration has purported to exercise powers under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, though no power of repeal, substitution or substantial legislative alteration is vested under Section 87 of the Act, as held by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Birch & Others Versus Union of India & Others case.
The petitioner says that the action amounts to unconstitutional overreach of legislative powers and an exercise of delegated legislation beyond the constitutional limitations prescribed under the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has also prayed to quash the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 30 & Section 33, being unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association Versus Union Of India, and Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India in as much as essential judicial functions of adjudication under the Rent Law have been vested in Executive Authorities such as Tehsildar, Additional Deputy Commissioner and other Executive Officers who lack judicial independence, security of tenure and necessary judicial training.
The petitioner alleges that the notification has been issued hastily, without due consideration of objections and without granting effective opportunity of hearing. They further pray that during the pendency of writ petition, operation of notification shall be kept in abeyance in the interest of justice, equity and fair play;
The petitioner says that while the extension of the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to Union Territory of Chandigarh, the local situation of UT, Chandigarh, its planning the type of buildings and other factors have not been considered and rather those provisions on the face of it leads not only to absurdity but also clearly an act of illegality.
The enactment of certain provisions such as definition of premises as provided under 2(d) and exclusion of companies under Section 3 have created absurdities and legal vacuum like there is no rent law which governs industrial premises, hotels, lodgings, inns and dharamsalas after the repeal of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The advocates of District Courts, Chandigarh, on the call given by the District Bar Association have been abstaining from the work against the newly notified Tenancy Act for Chandigarh.
