The Allahabad High Court has clarified that while supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to reappreciate facts in rent eviction matters, courts may grant equitable relief to tenants where fairness demands it. In this case, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the eviction order but granted extended time to vacate and directed refund of excess deposit after adjustment of admitted rent.
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). The respondent-landlords, Smt. Madhu Agarwal and another, filed an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant, Vimal Kumar Shukla, from residential premises in Kanpur Nagar, alleging non-payment of rent and unauthorized subletting. The petitioner contested the claim of enhanced rent and sought protection under the Act.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the premises since at least 2015
- The landlords claimed monthly rent of Rs. 21,580/-, which the petitioner denied
- The petitioner admitted a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- as the lawful rate
- The Rent Authority, in its order dated 24.03.2025 (amended 16.04.2025), allowed the eviction application
- The Rent Tribunal, in its order dated 08.12.2025, affirmed the eviction but held that the landlords failed to prove the enhanced rent of Rs. 21,580/-
- Pursuant to the Rent Tribunal’s order, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,91,330/- as security
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court challenging both orders
Procedural History
- 2023: Eviction application filed by landlords before Additional District Magistrate (Judicial)/Rent Authority, Kanpur Nagar (Case No. 564 of 2023)
- 24.03.2025: Rent Authority passed order allowing eviction
- 16.04.2025: Rent Authority amended the order
- 2025: Petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2025 before Additional District Judge (Rent Tribunal)
- 08.12.2025: Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upheld eviction, but held landlords failed to prove enhanced rent
- 2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5981 of 2026 under Article 227 before Allahabad High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the eviction orders and refund of Rs. 2,91,330/- deposited before the Rent Tribunal. Alternatively, he prayed for eight months’ 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 eviction order passed under the U.P. Rent Act where no patent illegality or perversity is evident, and whether a tenant is entitled to refund of excess deposit after the landlord fails to prove enhanced rent.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Tribunal had correctly held that the landlords failed to establish the enhanced rent of Rs. 21,580/-. Therefore, the entire deposit of Rs. 2,91,330/- should be refunded. He further urged that the tenant, who had been in possession for over a decade, deserved a reasonable extension of time to vacate the premises.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the enhanced rent claim was not proven. However, he contended that the deposit must first be adjusted against the admitted rent of Rs. 450/- per month for the period of default and continued occupation. He expressed no objection to the prayer for extended time to vacate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the orders of the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal were based on a thorough appreciation of evidence and contained no patent illegality, error of law, or perversity warranting interference under Article 227. The High Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction is not a substitute for appellate review.
"The petitioner’s counsel could not dispute that the orders impugned herein are founded upon due appreciation of facts and material available on record, and that no patent error, illegality or perversity inheres therein."
The Court accepted the submission that the landlords failed to prove the enhanced rent. It noted that the deposit of Rs. 2,91,330/- was made under the Rent Tribunal’s order and was not a penalty but a security deposit. The Court held that since the admitted rent was Rs. 450/- per month, any amount deposited in excess of the lawful rent liability must be refunded after adjustment.
The Court further recognized the humanitarian aspect of the case, acknowledging the tenant’s long-standing possession and the practical difficulty of immediate eviction. It emphasized that while the legal right to possession vests in the landlord, equity demands a reasonable transition period.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed, but the Court granted the petitioner eight months’ time to vacate the premises on or before 11th January, 2027. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- per month as use and occupation charges by the 7th of each month, commencing June 2026. The deposit of Rs. 2,91,330/- shall be adjusted against arrears of rent at Rs. 450/- per month, and the balance shall be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner must file an undertaking before the Rent Authority within two weeks, failing which the protection shall stand vacated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Refund of Excess Deposit Is Mandatory
- Where a landlord fails to prove enhanced rent, any deposit made by the tenant beyond the admitted rent must be refunded after adjustment
- Courts must calculate the lawful rent liability period-by-period and not treat deposits as forfeited
- This applies even if eviction is upheld
Article 227 Is Not an Appeal Route
- High Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute their view for that of specialized tribunals
- Interference is permissible only for patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity
- Practitioners must frame Article 227 petitions narrowly to avoid dismissal on merits
Equitable Relief in Eviction Matters Is Recognized
- Courts may grant extended time to vacate even when eviction is lawful
- Conditions like monthly use charges and undertakings are enforceable
- Such relief balances landlord’s right to possession with tenant’s right to dignity and transition
