DATE: 25.03.2026
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
FACTS:
The dispute concerns a tenanted bungalow in
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The landlord filed eviction proceedings under
Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 on the
ground of non-payment of rent. The Additional District Magistrate (Rent
Authority) held that the landlord-tenant relationship existed and directed the
tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days. This finding was affirmed by the
District Judge in appeal, by the Allahabad High Court in proceedings under
Article 227, and finally by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 21177 of 2024 dismissed
on 20.09.2024. The Supreme Court granted time to vacate till 31.03.2025 subject
to an undertaking. The tenant’s review petition and miscellaneous application
were also dismissed.
Despite the finality of the eviction order,
the tenant filed a restoration application before the Rent Authority, which was
allowed on 15.05.2025. The landlord challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 8420
of 2025 before the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the restoration order
and remanded the matter. The tenant then preferred the present Special Leave
Petition. Parallel contempt proceedings were initiated by the landlord for
non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s vacation direction. The Supreme Court
declined to entertain the SLP on merits, finding it an abuse of process,
imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs on the tenant, and issued a show-cause notice to the
Additional District Magistrate (Rent Authority) for passing the restoration
order in ignorance of the Supreme Court’s binding directions.
ISSUES:
The primary issues were whether the Rent
Authority could entertain and allow a restoration application seeking to recall
its own eviction order after the Supreme Court had conclusively affirmed the
landlord-tenant relationship and directed vacation of the premises, and whether
the Additional District Magistrate, acting as Rent Authority, exceeded her
jurisdiction by effectively re-opening title-related questions and disregarding
binding superior court orders, thereby necessitating a show-cause notice for
contempt.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the
tenant’s Special Leave Petition on merits, declared the Rent Authority’s order
dated 15.05.2025 void for want of jurisdiction, accepted the unconditional
apology tendered by the Additional District Magistrate, and disposed of the
appeal. It clarified that the proceedings would not affect the officer’s career
progression and closed all pending applications.
The Court reasoned that once the
landlord-tenant relationship and the eviction order had attained finality after
successive affirmations by the Rent Authority, Appellate Authority, High Court,
and the Supreme Court (including dismissal of review and miscellaneous
applications), the Rent Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain a
restoration application that sought to nullify those findings. The U.P. Urban
Premises Rent Control Act, 2021 expressly limits the Rent Authority’s
jurisdiction to the existence of the tenancy agreement and excludes questions
of title or ownership, which fall within the domain of civil courts. By
allowing the restoration application on the basis of a report prepared by her
in her administrative capacity as Additional District Magistrate regarding
alleged forgery of sale deeds, the officer had impermissibly blended two
distinct jurisdictions, rendering the order a nullity. The Court emphasised
that an order passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio and cannot be
permitted to override binding directions of the Supreme Court directing the
tenant to vacate by 31.03.2025.
The Court further held that the tenant’s
repeated attempts to re-litigate the matter through the restoration route, even
after furnishing an undertaking and while contempt proceedings were pending,
constituted a gross abuse of process and an attempt to overreach the Supreme
Court’s orders. It underscored the principles of judicial discipline and
comity, observing that subordinate authorities are bound to follow orders of
higher courts unreservedly. Citing precedents such as Baradakanta Misra, Union
of India v. Kamlakshi Finance, and C. Ravichandran Iyer, the Court reiterated
that deliberate disregard of superior court orders undermines the rule of law,
erodes public confidence in the judiciary, and strikes at the root of judicial
authority. The show-cause notice was issued solely to enforce accountability
for this breach of judicial hierarchy, while the unconditional apology was
accepted in the interest of justice without affecting the officer’s service
record.
ANALYSIS:
This judgment
reinforces the binding nature of successive judicial orders and the strict
limits of statutory jurisdiction conferred on Rent Authorities under the U.P.
Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021. The Supreme Court strongly disapproved
of the Rent Authority’s decision to entertain and allow a restoration
application that effectively sought to reopen and nullify an eviction order
which had attained finality after being upheld by the trial authority,
appellate authority, High Court, and the Supreme Court itself. By relying on a
report prepared in her parallel administrative capacity as Additional District
Magistrate regarding alleged forgery of title documents, the officer
impermissibly mixed two distinct jurisdictions. The Court held that questions
of title lie exclusively within the domain of civil courts, while the Rent
Authority’s role is narrowly confined to determining the existence of a
landlord-tenant relationship and eviction on statutory grounds. The restoration
order was therefore declared a nullity as it was passed without jurisdiction and
in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s binding direction to vacate the
premises by 31.03.2025.
The judgment also
serves as a strong reminder of judicial discipline, hierarchy, and the doctrine
of abuse of process. The Supreme Court rightly viewed the tenant’s persistent
attempts to re-litigate the matter through collateral proceedings, even after
giving an undertaking before the Court, as a gross abuse aimed at overreaching
superior court orders. At the same time, it emphasised that subordinate authorities
cannot ignore or bypass final orders of higher courts under the guise of
exercising statutory powers. The issuance of a show-cause notice to the
Additional District Magistrate (though later dropped after unconditional
apology) underscored the Court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and
preventing erosion of public confidence in judicial finality. By accepting the
apology without affecting the officer’s career, the Court maintained a balanced
approach enforcing accountability while preserving institutional harmony.
Overall, the decision protects the sanctity of judicial orders and warns
against any attempt to circumvent them through parallel or restorative
proceedings.
info@adhwaitha.com