Supreme Court Slams Rent Authority's 'Gross Abuse' in Reopening Eviction Case – Upholds Judicial Order Finality

In a stern rebuke emphasizing judicial discipline, the Supreme Court of India has declared void a Rent Authority's order recalling an eviction ruling that had been affirmed up to the apex court itself. Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in Rajesh Goyal v. M/s Laxmi Constructions & Ors. (2026 INSC 299; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 297), fined the obstinate tenant Rs 5 lakhs and accepted an unconditional apology from the erring Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, while cautioning against jurisdictional overreach.

A Tenant’s Tenacious Fight Against the Inevitable

The dispute centers on a bungalow in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – Bungalow Hall Municipality No.2/1410/11 (Old No.43), Rose Bank, Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road. Landlord M/s Laxmi Constructions, represented by Ashish Kumar, invoked Section 21(2) of the UP Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 (later Act), alleging non-payment of rent by tenant Rajesh Goyal (also involving Harsh Goyal).

  • 2022 : Rent Authority (ADM Saharanpur) orders eviction within 30 days, finding landlord-tenant relationship.
  • 2024 : Affirmed by District Judge (Appeal No.57/2022), Allahabad High Court (Art. 227 petition), and Supreme Court SLP(C) No.21177/2024 (dismissed Sept 20, with vacate by March 31, 2025).
  • 2025 : Tenant's review and misc. application dismissed; contempt filed for non-vacation.

Despite this cascade of finality, the tenant filed a restoration petition before the same Rent Authority, alleging forged sale deeds undermining landlord's title. Shockingly, on May 15, 2025, it was allowed – prompting the landlord's writ appeal.

High Court Intervenes, Tenant Doubles Down

Allahabad High Court (Writ Appeal No.8420/2025, July 17, 2025) set aside the restoration, remitting for fresh decision under Rules 34(H) and 11(D) of the UP Act. Tenant Rajesh Goyal appealed via SLP(C) No.27184/2025.

Parallel contempt proceedings (CP(C) No.218/2025) saw the contemnors (Goyals) promise vacation within two weeks (Sept 9, 2025 order). Yet, the SLP was filed post-undertaking, dubbed by SC as "gross abuse of process" and "overreaching."

Tenant's Title Ploy vs. Landlord's Finality Plea

Tenant's Arguments : Restoration warranted due to alleged forged sale deeds (title dispute). Police Superintendent recommended FIR; ADM report (Dec 31, 2024) flagged Registration Act violations. Urged revisiting landlord-tenant relationship.

Landlord's Arguments : Relationship conclusively established across forums; SC's dismissal and vacate order binding. Rent Authority's jurisdiction limited (Sec.38 UP Act) to tenancy, not title (Civil Court domain). Restoration ignores judicial finality, invites contempt.

Judicial Comity Trumped – Why the Authority Erred

The Court dissected the UP Act: Sec.21(2) allows eviction for non-payment; Sec.38 bars Civil Courts on Act matters but confines Rent Authority to tenancy agreements, explicitly excluding title/ownership.

Key flaw: Same ADM prepared title report and allowed restoration as Rent Authority – impermissible role bleed. "Question of title... squarely within the domain of the Civil Court, and not the Rent Authority ."

Citing precedents: - Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit (1973): Inferior courts' disobedience undermines superior authority. - Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance (1992): Subordinates must follow higher appellate orders. - C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995): Judges must uphold integrity, probity. - M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003): Precedent ensures certainty.

Restoration rendered SC-affirmed findings "nullity," breaching comity. Order without jurisdiction? A "nullity."

Key Observations

"Respect for the authority of orders passed post adjudication by a judicial activity, be it this Court or the High Court is a basic principle of judicial comity , more so, upon attaining finality. The principle of nullity of jurisdiction is also common knowledge and well established."

"When this [SC vacate order] is the direction occupying the field, we are at a loss to conceive of a situation where an action of the Rent Authority can, in effect, render the finding confirmed... a nullity ."

"The position that an order passed without jurisdiction is nullity , needs no exposition."

"Jurisdiction especially at the level of the Trial Courts is a creation of specific statutes and the learned judges must be cognizant, always of the differences in the jurisdiction conferred upon them thereby."

Final Verdict: Restoration Void, Tenant Penalized, Authority Spared Career Hit

Appeal dismissed on merits. Rent Authority 's May 15, 2025 order declared void. Tenant to deposit Rs 5 lakhs cost with SC Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society . Show-cause to ADM resolved via apology acceptance – "these proceedings in no way shall impact the career progression of the concerned judicial officer."

Implications? Reinforces hierarchy: Lower forums cannot undo superior finality. Rent Authorities must stick to tenancy, shunt title to Civil Courts. A cautionary tale for endless litigation in rent disputes, prioritizing "cherished principle of judicial discipline ."