The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was enacted with the object to regulate renting of premises and to protect the interests of landlords and tenants and to provide a speedy adjudication mechanism for the resolution of disputes, and to do so, the Act makes provisions to establish the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunals.
The Rent Authority
The Rent Authority, constituted under Section 30 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, is vested with powers to decide the disputes between landlord and tenant pertaining to Revision of Rent under Section 10, Deposit of Rent upon refusal by landlord and subsequent inquiry and order thereupon under Section 14, grievances against holding of essential supply or service under Section 20(2), eviction and recovery of possession under Section 21(2), eviction and recovery of possession upon death of landlord upon the application of legal heirs under Section 22, disputes regarding additional structures proposed by landlord but refused by tenant under Section 26, dispute regarding vacant land under Section 27, among others.
Section 30 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 provides that the Rent Authority shall be appointed by the District Collector and shall not be an officer below the rank of Additional District Collector.
Section 34 of the Act further empowers the Rent Authority to enable it to conduct proper inquiries and discharge its duties effectively. Section 34(3) of the Act is as follows:
(3) For the purposes of holding any inquiry or discharging any duty under this Act, the Rent Authority may,-
(a) after giving not less than twenty-four hours’ notice in writing, enter and inspect or authorize any officer subordinate to it, to enter and inspect any premises at any time between sunrise and sunset;
(b) by a written order, require any person to produce for its inspection-such books or documents relevant to the inquiry, at such time and at such place as may be specified in the order.
The Rent Authority is also empowered to execute its orders and appellate orders, correct its orders, execute the recovery of fines as a judicial magistrate of the first class, and recall ex parte orders if sufficient cause shown.
The Rent Tribunal
The Rent Tribunal is the appellate authority to the Rent Authority and is constituted under Section 32 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The Rent Tribunal shall be presided over by the District Judge himself or by an Additional District Judge nominated by the District Judge in each district.
Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 provides for the remedy of Appeal before the Rent Tribunal from an order passed by the Rent Authority within thirty days from the date of that order. A pre-deposit amount of 50% of the entire payable amount is mandatory for institution of the appeal before the Tribunal.
Section 35(4) of the Act enables the Rent Tribunal to pass interlocutory orders, if it deems fit, during the pendency of an appeal. The Rent Tribunal has the power to confirm, set aside, or modify the orders of the Rent Authority in appellate jurisdiction.
Remedy against Orders passed by the Rent Tribunal before Allahabad High Court
In the case of Ravindra Kumar v. Rent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (City), Ghaziabad and Another (Writ-A No. 19650 of 2025), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dealt with the issue as to whether an order passed by the Rent Tribunal under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court framed the issue and dealt with the entire scheme of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The question before the Court was whether the Rent Tribunal, presided over by the District Judge or Additional District Judge, acts as a Civil Court or “Persona Designata”.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decided the issue and held that the Rent Tribunal acts as a civil court and the orders passed under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 are judicial orders, hence, susceptible to challenge under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court relied on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, and upheld that such orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
In the case of Radhe Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law as follows:
“27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.
29. Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows:
29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.
29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai, is overruled.”
In the earlier statutory scheme, which stands now repealed, i.e. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972 are also amenable to supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as has been settled in the case of Radha Kishan Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 SCC Online All 822], and now reiterated recently in the case of Romil Jain vs. Ashok Kumar Jain and another [Writ-A No. 16424 of 2025].