CHANDIGARH, May 18, 2026 – A procedural decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has moved the hearing on Chandigarh’s controversial new tenancy regulations to a designated Bench, following a petition arguing that the law strips judicial powers from regular courts.
The case focuses on the Union Territory’s transition to the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021, which replaced the 1949 regional rent restriction law via a federal ministry order earlier this month. During the preliminary hearing, the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu noted that the matter fell outside its current roster and directed its transfer, with a potential listing scheduled for Tuesday.
Senior advocate Chetan Mittal, representing the regional bar associations, argued that the structural reorganization disrupts the established separation of powers by placing judicial responsibilities on revenue officials.
“Powers earlier exercised by regular courts had now been vested in authorities such as tehsildars, while the deputy commissioner functioned as the appellate authority,” Mittal asserted.
The senior counsel stated that this arrangement directly conflicts with the consistent judicial view that rent evaluation bodies must be led by trained judicial officers.
The petitioners noted that federal agencies exceeded their constitutional boundaries by using delegated executive powers to repeal an active piece of legislation. The petition states that such sweeping legislative changes require direct parliamentary intervention rather than localized administrative notifications.
The legal action highlights several practical and systemic vulnerabilities introduced by the policy change. Beyond the lack of courtrooms and staff to handle the transition, the bar bodies noted that the new rules heavily disadvantage tenants by allowing property owners to demand vacancy without standard legal justifications.
The petition concludes that the policy fails to acknowledge Chandigarh’s unique administrative and demographic status, asserting that the arbitrary enforcement of distant state legislation threatens to destabilize local real estate and commercial tenancy protections.
