The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the principle that while supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to reappreciate evidence, it may be exercised to grant equitable relief where justice demands it. In this case, the Court dismissed the petition challenging an eviction order but imposed a structured, time-bound condition to protect the tenant’s interests without undermining the landlord’s statutory rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 2021 (U P Act No.16 of 2021), concerning the eviction of a tenant from commercial premises in Allahabad. The landlord, respondent no.1, filed an application before the Rent Authority seeking possession on grounds of non-payment of rent and breach of tenancy terms. The tenant, petitioner Shahid Hussain, contested the application, claiming irregularities in service of notice and denial of opportunity to be heard.
Key Facts
- The tenancy commenced in 2018 under a written agreement for commercial use
- Rent arrears accumulated over 18 months, totaling Rs. 1,26,000 as per landlord’s records
- Landlord issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2024 demanding payment or vacating the premises
- Tenant filed a reply on 22.06.2024, disputing the quantum of arrears and alleging defective notice
- Rent Authority conducted a hearing on 05.08.2024 and passed an order on 15.10.2024 directing eviction
- Tenant filed Rent Appeal No.13 of 2025 before the Rent Tribunal on 28.10.2024
- Rent Tribunal heard the appeal on 18.01.2026 and affirmed the Rent Authority’s order on 06.03.2026
- Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 on 12.04.2026
Procedural History
- 10.05.2024: Legal notice issued by landlord demanding payment or vacating
- 22.06.2024: Tenant’s reply filed with Rent Authority
- 05.08.2024: Hearing before Rent Authority
- 15.10.2024: Rent Authority order directing eviction passed
- 28.10.2024: Tenant files Rent Appeal No.13 of 2025
- 18.01.2026: Rent Tribunal hearing
- 06.03.2026: Rent Tribunal affirms eviction order
- 12.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 227 before Allahabad High Court
- 15.05.2026: Hearing before Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Rent Authority’s order dated 15.10.2024 and the Rent Tribunal’s order dated 06.03.2026, on grounds of procedural illegality and lack of evidence. In the alternative, counsel sought additional time to vacate the premises.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, could interfere with an order passed by the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal that was neither manifestly illegal, perverse, nor vitiated by procedural injustice, and whether it could grant equitable relief in the form of extended time for vacating premises despite dismissing the petition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Rent Authority failed to properly appreciate the tenant’s reply and did not record reasons for rejecting the claim of defective notice. He contended that the orders were passed without adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the quantum of arrears was not independently verified. He relied on Smt. Sushila Devi v. Ram Kishan to argue that procedural fairness must be ensured even under special statutes.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the landlord submitted that the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal had meticulously examined the rent receipts, notice records, and tenant’s conduct. He emphasized that the tenant had not disputed the possession or the fact of non-payment, only the quantum. He argued that the orders were well-reasoned and that the High Court’s intervention under Article 227 was not warranted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner did not dispute the factual foundation of the eviction - namely, the non-payment of rent and the validity of the notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the orders did not suffer from any manifest illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice. The Court noted that Article 227 is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or substitute the tribunal’s findings.
"The petition fails on the merits as the impugned orders are neither illegal nor perverse, and the petitioner has not demonstrated any jurisdictional error or gross violation of principles of natural justice."
However, the Court recognized the humanitarian dimension of eviction, particularly where the tenant has no immediate alternative accommodation. The Court emphasized that while it could not set aside the orders, it retained the inherent power to grant equitable relief to prevent undue hardship, provided such relief is conditional and does not defeat the landlord’s statutory right to possession.
The Court further noted that the landlord had no objection to an extension of time, which indicated a willingness to accommodate reasonable delay. This cooperation, coupled with the absence of any malafide on the tenant’s part, justified the imposition of structured conditions to balance the rights of both parties.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted the petitioner eight months’ time to vacate the premises, on or before 15th January 2027, subject to three conditions: (i) filing an undertaking before the Rent Authority to vacate by the deadline and pay Rs.7,000 per month as use and occupation charges by the 7th of each month; (ii) filing the undertaking within two weeks; and (iii) depositing all arrears of rent, after adjusting prior payments, within two weeks. In case of default on any condition, the protection shall stand vacated automatically, and the landlord may enforce the eviction order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equitable Relief Is Available Even When Petition Is Dismissed
- Practitioners must now consider seeking conditional extension of time as an alternative relief in eviction matters under the U P Rent Act, even if the petition lacks merit
- Courts may grant such relief under Article 227 if the landlord consents and the tenant demonstrates genuine hardship
Use and Occupation Charges Are Legally Recognized
- Monthly use and occupation charges (Rs.7,000 in this case) are enforceable during extended possession periods
- These charges are distinct from rent and must be paid independently to maintain the stay of eviction
Conditional Orders Must Be Strictly Complied With
-
Failure to file undertaking or pay arrears within stipulated timelines automatically vacates the Court’s protection
-
Landlords may proceed with enforcement without further court order upon default
-
Always draft undertakings with precise deadlines and payment terms
-
Advise clients to deposit arrears immediately upon filing for extension to avoid automatic vacation of relief
-
Use landlord’s consent as a strategic tool to secure judicial leniency
