The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday referred to the appropriate Bench a challenge to the extension of the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to Chandigarh, even as the petitioners argued before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu that the impugned law vested powers traditionally exercised by courts in revenue officers such as tehsildars and additional deputy commissioners, contrary to settled constitutional principles.
Appearing for the petitioners — the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and the UT District Bar Association — senior advocate Chetan Mittal submitted that one of the principal grievances against the impugned framework was that the “Rent Authority” and appellate functions had effectively been placed in the hands of executive officers already burdened with administrative responsibilities.
Mittal argued that powers earlier exercised by regular courts had now been vested in authorities such as tehsildars, while the deputy commissioner functioned as the appellate authority. He contended that the arrangement ran contrary to the law laid down on tribunalisation and adjudicatory structures.
He maintained that the consistent judicial view had been that rent adjudicatory authorities ought to be judicial officers.
The petitioners further questioned the constitutional validity of repealing the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, through delegated legislation while extending the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to Chandigarh by a notification dated May 6 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Arguing before the Bench, Mittal submitted that even within the framework of delegated powers, courts had placed constitutional limitations on the power to repeal legislation, referring to settled jurisprudence dating back to Constitution Bench rulings on delegated legislation and reorganisation-related issues.
During the hearing, it was pointed out that the matter appeared not to fall within the roster assigned to the Chief Justice-led Bench. The Bench observed that the case could be placed before the appropriate Bench, possibly on Tuesday, or a request could be made on the administrative side. Concerns were also voiced regarding practical difficulties being faced by lawyers because of the new mechanism and the lack of supporting infrastructure.
The petition challenges the notification extending the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, to Chandigarh and substituting the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to the Union Territory.
The petitioners have contended that the impugned action amounted to unconstitutional overreach and exercise of delegated legislation beyond constitutional limits. They have also asserted that Chandigarh’s unique planning, building profile and local conditions were ignored while importing the Assam legislation.
The plea argues that the provisions undermine the very basis of rent-control jurisprudence by diluting tenant protections. Among other things, it contends that a landlord could seek vacation of premises through notice without proving personal necessity, while tenants continuing in occupation after termination could be saddled with penal rent at escalating rates.
