Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Rajesh Goyal – Appellant
Versus
M/s Laxmi Constructions and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4076 of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27184 of 2025]
Decided On : 25-03-2026
(A) Rent and Eviction – [Section 38 of U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021] – Default in payment of agreed rent – Landlord-tenant relationship inter-se parties have been conclusively established across all levels of judicial review – This Court, while agreeing with findings returned by Courts below, held that there was no reason to grant Special Leave to Appeal – However, it was ordered that vacant and peaceful possession of premises in question be handed over to landlord – This became a binding and operative direction – Question of title which was sought to be challenged by tenant in restoration proceedings, alleging that landlord in fact had no title, is squarely within domain of Civil Court, and not Rent Authority – Rent Authority and Additional District Magistrate, who prepared Report, are one and very same – This is impermissible for latter is a special statute with clearly defined areas of action – Order passed without jurisdiction is nullity – Rent Authority’s order for recall declared void. (Paras 8, 9, 11 and 12)
(B) Judicial Discipline – Respect for authority of orders passed post adjudication by a judicial activity, be it Supreme Court or High Court is a basic principle of judicial comity, more so, upon attaining finality – Doctrine of Binding Precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables organic development of law. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is at instance of tenant challenging order and judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 8420 of 2025 by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17th July 2025, allowing landlord’s appeal thereby setting aside order of Rent Authority allowing petition for restoration of proceedings, preferred by appellant.
Findings of Court:
Jurisdiction especially at level of Trial Courts is a creation of specific statutes and Judges must be cognizant, always of differences in jurisdiction conferred upon them thereby.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Key Points: - The Rent Authority lacks jurisdiction to address title or ownership issues of premises, as its power is limited to tenancy matters under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021 (!) (!) (!) - Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, affirmed the landlord-tenant relationship and eviction order, directing the tenant to vacate by 31.03.2025 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Rent Authority's order dated 15.05.2025 allowing restoration of proceedings was void for overstepping jurisdiction and conflicting with final higher court orders (!) (!) (!) - Judicial discipline requires subordinate authorities to unreservedly follow orders of higher courts, and disobedience undermines judicial authority (!) (!) - The tenant's restoration application before the Rent Authority after Supreme Court dismissal constituted abuse of process and overreaching court orders (!) (!) - The Supreme Court issued show cause notice to the Rent Authority for contempt but accepted unconditional apology without career impact (!) (!) - Appeal disposed confirming tenant's obligation to vacate; Rs. 5 Lakhs cost imposed on tenant (!) (!) - Eviction was ordered under Section 21(2) for non-payment of rent arrears (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant's obligation to vacate established. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. restoration proceedings ineffective post-eviction judgment. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. jurisdiction limitations of rent authority. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. judicial discipline and authority adherence emphasized. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. final disposal of the appeal. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the tenant challenging the order and judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 8420 of 2025 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17th July 2025, allowing the landlord’s appeal thereby setting aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur1 [Rent Authority] allowing the petition for restoration of proceedings, preferred by the appellant.
3. Our order dated 22nd September 2025 recorded the chequered history of this dispute, in detail. We may reproduce the same:
2. The dispute pertains to Bungalow Hall Municipality No. 2/1410/11 (Old No. 43) Rose Bank, Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Legal proceedings were initiated under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 which came to be numbered as Case No. 2082/2022 titled Ashish Kumar, son of Shri Laxmi Kumar vs. Harsh Goyal Son of Shri Virender Goyal.
3. The Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Saharanpur-1 vide order dated 07.09.2022 held, relationship of landlord and tenant to be in existence inter se the parties and directed the tenant (appellant herein) to vacate the disputed property within 30 days. Such a finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority viz. District Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 57/2022 vide order dated 22.01.2024.
4. The High Court also by its order dated 14.05.2024 in “Matters under Article 227 No. 1821/2024” confirmed these findings. Not satisfied by having three Courts decide against him, the tenant tried his luck before this Court vide SLP (C) No. 21177 of 2024 which was also dismissed on 20.09.2024 observing as under:
“1. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for minimum six months’ time to vacate the suit premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the suit premises shall be vacated by the petitioners on or before 31.03.2025 subject to payment of rent and arrears thereof. The petitioners shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents on or before 31.03.2025 and shall not part with or create third party right therein. The petitioners shall file a usual undertaking in this regard within a period of two weeks from today before the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The violation of the aforesaid terms would be treated as non-compliance of the order of this Court.
3. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, is/are disposed of.
5. The tenant sought a review of the said order being Review Petition (C) Dy. No. 50976 of 2024 titled Harsh Goyal and Another vs. M/s. Laxmi Construction and Others, which also was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2025 in the following terms:
“Delay condoned. IA No. 31347/2025 for listing review petition in open court is rejected. We have carefully perused the Review Petition as also the grounds taken in the petition. In our opinion, no case for review of order dated 20.09.2024 is made out. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of”
6. Obstinately, the tenant filed a Misc. Application bearing No. 505 of 2025 in SLP (C) No. 21177 of 2024 against the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition as also the Review Petition. This was also dismissed by order dated 24.03.2025 which reads as under:
“(1) After hearing learned counsel, we are not inclined to entertain th
(1) Rent and Eviction – Question of title is squarely within domain of Civil Court and not Rent Authority.(2) Judicial Discipline – Doctrine of Binding Precedent helps in promoting certainty and cons....
A statutory Rent Authority lacks jurisdiction to override or nullify a final eviction order affirmed by the Supreme Court. Judicial discipline requires that subordinate authorities strictly adhere to....
The Rent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications even without a tenancy agreement under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
Landlords need only establish a better title than the tenant in eviction proceedings, and the powers of review are confined to addressing patent errors without reappraising previously settled materia....
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
Ownership does not automatically establish a landlord-tenant relationship without evidence of rent agreements or payments, as confirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties should be held to their commitments made before the Rent Controller and the court, and that pleadings before the Rent Controller shoul....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
