SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 325

SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
Rajesh Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Constructions – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Ali Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Sangwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Swami, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Singh Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashasvi Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, AOR

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority under the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021?


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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top