The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle of judicial hierarchy by holding that a subordinate authority cannot nullify an eviction order that has been conclusively affirmed by higher courts, including this Court. The judgment underscores the imperative of judicial discipline and the sanctity of final orders, particularly when they carry the weight of binding precedent and explicit directions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the eviction of tenant Harsh Goyal and Rajesh Goyal from a residential bungalow located at Bungalow Hall Municipality No.2/1410/11 (Old No.43), Rose Bank, Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The landlord, M/s Laxmi Constructions & Ors., initiated proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021, alleging non-payment of rent.
Key Facts
- The landlord-tenant relationship was established by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur-1, in its order dated 07.09.2022, directing the tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days.
- The Appellate Authority, District Judge, Saharanpur, affirmed this order on 22.01.2024 in Rent Control Appeal No.57/2022.
- The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad confirmed the eviction on 14.05.2024 in Matters under Article 227 No.1821/2024.
- The tenant filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21177 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2024 with a specific direction: "The suit premises shall be vacated by the petitioners on or before 31.03.2025 subject to payment of rent and arrears thereof."
- The tenant filed a Review Petition (C) Dy.No.50976 of 2024, dismissed on 18.03.2025.
- A Miscellaneous Application bearing No.505 of 2025 was also dismissed on 24.03.2025.
- Despite these final orders, the tenant filed a restoration application (Case No. RST/2169/2025) before the same Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, seeking recall of the 07.09.2022 eviction order.
- The Additional District Magistrate allowed the restoration application on 15.05.2025, citing allegations that the landlord’s title was based on forged sale deeds.
- The landlord challenged this restoration order before the High Court, which set it aside on 17.07.2025 in Writ Appeal No.8420 of 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication under Rule 34(H) read with Rule 11(D) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021.
- The tenant filed the present Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27184 of 2025 against the High Court’s order.
- Concurrently, the landlord filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No.218/2025 before the Supreme Court for non-compliance with the 31.03.2025 vacating order. On 09.09.2025, the Supreme Court granted the tenant two weeks to vacate, with a direction to file an affidavit of delivery of possession.
Procedural History
- 07.09.2022: Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur-1, ordered eviction.
- 22.01.2024: District Judge, Saharanpur, affirmed eviction in Rent Control Appeal No.57/2022.
- 14.05.2024: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad confirmed eviction under Article 227.
- 20.09.2024: Supreme Court dismissed SLP(C) No.21177 of 2024 and directed eviction by 31.03.2025.
- 18.03.2025: Review Petition dismissed.
- 24.03.2025: Miscellaneous Application dismissed.
- 15.05.2025: Additional District Magistrate allowed restoration application (RST/2169/2025).
- 17.07.2025: High Court set aside restoration order and remanded for fresh hearing.
- 19.09.2025: SLP(C) No.27184 of 2025 filed before Supreme Court.
- 09.09.2025: Supreme Court issued directions in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.218/2025, granting two weeks to vacate.
- 25.03.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
The tenant contended that the landlord’s title was invalid due to forged sale deeds, and therefore, the eviction order was void ab initio. He argued that the restoration application was a legitimate attempt to challenge jurisdictional defects.
The landlord maintained that the landlord-tenant relationship had been conclusively established across three levels of adjudication, and the Supreme Court’s order of 20.09.2024 was final and binding. The restoration application was an abuse of process.
Relief Sought
The tenant sought to set aside the High Court’s order dated 17.07.2025 and restore the restoration order dated 15.05.2025. The landlord sought dismissal of the SLP and enforcement of the eviction order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Rent Authority, acting under a special statute with limited jurisdiction, can set aside an eviction order that has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court, particularly when the challenge is based on allegations of title - which lie outside the Rent Authority’s statutory domain.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The tenant argued that the eviction order was void because the landlord lacked title, as evidenced by the Additional District Magistrate’s own report dated 31.12.2024, which found the sale deeds to be forged and in violation of the Registration Act, 1908. He contended that the restoration application was a legitimate procedural remedy under the U.P. Rent Control Act to correct a jurisdictional error. He relied on the principle that a nullity can be challenged at any stage.
For the Respondent/State
The landlord argued that the landlord-tenant relationship had been conclusively established by three courts and the Supreme Court, and the eviction order was final and binding. The challenge to title was outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Rent Control Act, 2021. The restoration application was a deliberate attempt to circumvent final orders and constituted an abuse of process.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the Rent Authority’s jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021. Section 38(2) explicitly limits its power to determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and excludes any inquiry into title or ownership. The Court emphasized that the tenant’s allegations of forged sale deeds, even if true, fall squarely within the domain of a civil court for a declaration suit - not the Rent Authority.
"The Rent Authority, and the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, who prepared the Report, are one and the very same. So, on the basis of the findings arrived at by her, in one capacity, in yet another capacity, she has allowed the application for restoration. Simply put, the investigation entrusted to her by virtue of being Additional District Magistrate, pervaded her in exercising the power as the Rent Authority. This, in our considered view, is impermissible."
The Court observed that the Additional District Magistrate, while acting as a quasi-judicial officer under the Rent Control Act, could not rely on findings made in her administrative capacity under the Criminal Procedure Code to nullify a judicial order. This dual role created a conflict of jurisdiction and violated the principle of separation of powers within the statutory framework.
The Court further held that the eviction order, having been affirmed by the High Court and finally dismissed by the Supreme Court with a specific direction to vacate by 31.03.2025, attained finality. Any attempt to reopen it through a restoration application was an abuse of process and an affront to judicial discipline.
"The principle of nullity of jurisdiction is also common knowledge and well established. Yet, here we are. It has to be acknowledged that this is not the first time this Court is confronted with such a situation."
The Court cited Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd., and C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee to underscore the duty of subordinate authorities to respect final orders of superior courts. The Court noted that such disregard undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and declared the restoration order dated 15.05.2025 as void for want of jurisdiction. The tenant was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society. The Court issued a show cause notice to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, for initiating proceedings for contempt for allowing the restoration application in clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s final order. The Court accepted the officer’s unconditional apology and clarified that this proceeding would not impact her career progression. The matter was closed with all pending applications disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Restoration Applications Cannot Override Final Eviction Orders
- Practitioners must not file restoration applications before Rent Authorities after a Supreme Court eviction order has been affirmed and a vacating deadline set.
- Any attempt to reopen such orders on grounds of title or fraud must be pursued in a civil court, not through administrative restoration.
Jurisdictional Boundaries Are Absolute
- Rent Authorities must strictly confine themselves to landlord-tenant disputes under the statute and must not entertain challenges to title, even if supported by police or magistrate reports.
- Judicial officers holding dual roles (e.g., Additional District Magistrate and Rent Authority) must avoid conflating administrative findings with quasi-judicial decisions.
Abuse of Process Invites Costs and Contempt Notices
- Courts will impose monetary costs for filing successive applications to circumvent final orders.
- Subordinate judicial officers who disregard binding orders risk contempt proceedings, even if they later apologize.
