Chandigarh, May 30 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) on Friday stayed the UT administration's May 6 notification adopting the Assam Tenancy Act, 2021. Notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, through a gazette notification issued by the UT, the new law had introduced stringent penalties for tenants overstaying beyond the tenancy period, caps on security deposits, mandatory written agreements clearly defining the rights and duties of landlords and tenants, and a three-tier adjudication mechanism comprising the Rent Authority, Rent Court and Rent Tribunal for resolving disputes if any. While hearing petitions from the HC Bar association and district Bar association, bench of justice HS Sethi said the May 6 notification "shall remain in abeyance" and sought UT's response by July 17. The court further observed that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which the UT had repealed while introducing the Assam Act, shall continue to remain in force in the city. This was in view that rules under the new law have not yet been framed, the Rent Authority has not been notified and the infrastructure required for implementing the legislation is not in place. However, the court allowed the UT to create infrastructure as per needs of new law, to deal with a scenario of HC dismissing the pleas. Multiple lawyers confirmed the development, however, a detailed order of the judgment is awaited. Senior advocate Chetan Mittal, who appeared in the case, said the court was of prima facie view that under Section 87 of Reorganisation Act, there is no power of repeal. Further it opined that the Rent Tribunal power cannot be given to the executive. The Bar bodies had challenged the law claiming that the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, gives Centre the power to extend any law that is in force in Punjab to Chandigarh. However, it does not give the power to repeal, amend or even enact laws in conflict with the existing law. Hence, the move is unconstitutional, the plea stated. The second ground was that while extending this Act, the tehsildar was made the rent authority and additional deputy commissioner was appointed as the appellate authority/rent court whereas under the earlier Rent Act, it was before the judicial officers - sub judge first class - and the appellate authority was the district judge. Earlier too, similar attempts had been made by Punjab and Haryana and when the courts interfered, powers from the executive were taken back and restored to judicial courts, the Bar bodies argued. The judicial functions, in any case, cannot be delegated to the executive officer once the proceedings under the impugned Act itself have been defined as "judicial proceedings", the petitions had argued, adding that the law is "total non-application of mind" and the entire Act does not give any protection to the tenants. It was also contended that the provisions of the Assam Act is totally impracticable to be applicable to Chandigarh. The petitions were filed on May 18....