PRAYAGRAJ, Jan. 3 -- The Allahabad high court has held that the absence of a written tenancy agreement or not furnishing particulars of tenancy do not bar the jurisdiction of rent authority. The court further held that under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the rent authority has the jurisdiction to entertain landlord's application for eviction of tenant where no written tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has also failed to furnish the particulars of tenancy. The court emphasised that the state legislature's conscious decision to omit the "fatal consequences" found in the Central Model Tenancy Act ensures that landlords are not deprived of their right to seek expedient eviction due to technical documentation failures. Giving this ruling, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal on December 16 observed, "This provision leads to conclusion that jurisdiction of rent authority under the Act of 2021 cannot be narrowed down only in cases of written agreement and its intimation to rent authority. Had the Legislature thought of giving limited access to landlord or tenant to approach rent authority only in cases of written agreement or its intimation, then proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 would not have been there in the statute book." "The intention of legislature cannot be ascertained merely on the basis of single provision, and regard must be given to other sections as well as the context, subject-matter and the object of the provision," the court held. The issue in the writ petitions was whether the rent authority, constituted as per the Act of 2021, has the jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by the landlords in cases where a tenancy agreement has not been executed. On behalf of the landlord, it was argued that the 2021 Act was intended to balance the rights of owners and tenants. Essentially, they argued that the rent authority should handle disputes even in unwritten tenancies to prevent the law's objectives from being frustrated by technicalities. For cases where eviction was sought directly under the new Act, the court set aside orders that had previously deemed such applications non-maintainable due to a lack of written agreements. While some matters were remanded for fresh decisions, others resulted in eviction orders. Notably, in certain petitions, tenants were granted a six-month grace period to vacate the premises, provided they submit a formal undertaking and clear all financial dues. Accordingly, the high court in its judgment partly allowed the writ petitions filed by Canara Bank Branch office and others....