The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday kept in abeyance the operation of the Central Government notification extending the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and ordered continuation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Among other things, the Bench was of the prima facie view that Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, did not confer power to repeal an existing law.
The interim order came on a writ petition jointly filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh, and the District Bar Association, District Courts, Chandigarh, challenging the notification dated May 6, 2026, through which the Assam Tenancy Act was extended to Chandigarh, resulting in repeal of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act that had been in force in the city since November 4, 1972.
A Division Bench of Justice H.S. Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda issued notice of motion to the respondents and directed them to file a response. Pending further proceedings, the Bench ordered that operation of the impugned notification shall remain in abeyance.
The Court further held that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, would continue to operate in Chandigarh in view of the conceded position that Rules under the new enactment had not yet been framed, the Rent Authority had not been notified and the infrastructure necessary for implementation of the new law was not in place.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Chetan Mittal, assisted by advocates Shifali Goyal and Ritvik Garg, argued that Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act only empowered extension of a law in force in Punjab to Chandigarh and did not authorise repeal or substitution of an existing statutory framework.
Referring to the Constitution Bench and Supreme Court judgments, the petitioners contended that the impugned notification was ex facie unconstitutional as it sought to replace an existing law through executive notification.
The petitioners also challenged the adjudicatory mechanism contemplated under the Assam Tenancy Act. It was argued that while the existing rent law vested adjudicatory powers in judicial officers such as the Sub Judge First Class and the District Judge, the Assam Act designated the Tehsildar as Rent Authority and the Additional Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority/Rent Court.
The petitioners submitted that similar attempts to vest judicial powers in executive authorities in Punjab and Haryana had earlier been interfered with by constitutional courts. The Bench, while recording prima facie satisfaction, also relied upon the 2026 judgment in “Madras Bar Association versus the Union of India”, which had observed that powers of the Rent Tribunal could not be conferred upon executive authorities.
The writ petition further pointed to several contradictions between the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the Assam Tenancy Act, contending that the latter was impracticable for Chandigarh. It was argued that Chandigarh’s planning framework earmarked buildings for specific purposes, whereas the Assam law treated tenancy primarily on the basis of contractual user between landlord and tenant.
The petitioners further submitted that a legal vacuum had emerged because the 1949 Act stood repealed even though the Rules under the new law had not been framed and no adjudicatory mechanism had been established. It was argued that nearly 30 to 50 rent matters were instituted daily in Chandigarh and landlord-tenant disputes had virtually come to a standstill in the absence of a functioning mechanism.
