The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and the UT District Bar Association have moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the UT Administration, the Centre, the Ministry of Law and Justice, among others, challenging the extension of the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to the Union Territory of Chandigarh through a notification dated May 6.
The petition stated that it had been filed challenging the notification dated May 6 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, had been extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It added that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh, had been repealed through the impugned notification and substituted by the Assam legislation as extended to Chandigarh.
The matter is scheduled to come up for hearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Monday. Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and senior panel counsel Dheeraj Jain are expected to appear before the Bench on the Centre’s behalf.
The petitioners contended that the impugned action amounted to an unconstitutional overreach of legislative powers and an exercise of delegated legislation beyond the constitutional limitations prescribed under the Constitution.
It was further submitted that the powers of Rent Authority and Appellate Authority under the provisions of the impugned Act had been vested in tehsildars and additional deputy commissioners in complete violation of settled principles of law.
The petitioners added the local situation of Chandigarh, its planning, the nature of its buildings and other relevant factors had not been considered, while extending the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to Chandigarh, rather, the provisions, on the face of it, not only led to absurdity but also amounted to “clear arbitrariness and discrimination” violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The plea further stated that the provisions of the impugned Act defeated the very object and purpose of rent control legislation and rendered illusory the protection otherwise available to tenants under rent-control jurisprudence. It was argued that a landlord could seek vacation of premises merely by giving notice, without having to demonstrate or prove any personal necessity. Further, a tenant, after termination of tenancy, would be liable to pay penal rent — twice the monthly rent for the first two months and four times the monthly rent thereafter for continued occupation.
