The Supreme Court of India has held that a Rent Authority has no jurisdiction to recall an eviction order once it has been upheld by superior courts, including the Supreme Court. In a judgment delivered by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Court declared a recall order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, as “void,” emphasizing that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.
The Court observed that the tenant’s attempt to restore proceedings after failing at every judicial level was “nothing short of the gross abuse of process of law and overreaching the orders passed by this Court.”
Background of the Dispute
The case involved a tenancy dispute regarding a property in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Legal proceedings were initiated under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021. In September 2022, the Rent Authority directed the tenant, Rajesh Goyal, to vacate the premises after establishing the landlord-tenant relationship.
This order was affirmed by the District Judge, Saharanpur, and subsequently by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The tenant then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 21177 of 2024, which was dismissed on September 20, 2024. The Court had granted the tenant time until March 31, 2025, to vacate, subject to a formal undertaking. Despite this, the tenant filed a restoration application before the Rent Authority, which was surprisingly allowed on May 15, 2025.
The Issue of Jurisdiction and Conflict of Interest
The Supreme Court noted that the Rent Authority (Additional District Magistrate) had entertained a restoration application on grounds of “title,” despite the fact that Section 38(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021, explicitly states that the Authority’s jurisdiction “shall not extend to the question of title or ownership of premises.”
The Bench further highlighted a conflict of interest, noting that the same officer who acted as the Rent Authority had, in their capacity as an Additional District Magistrate, prepared an investigative report alleging the landlord’s sale deeds were forged. The Court remarked:
“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 for the latter is a special statute with clearly defined areas of action.”
Court’s Analysis of Judicial Discipline
The Court reaffirmed that judicial comity and adherence to the hierarchy of courts are essential for the rule of law. It noted that the landlord-tenant relationship was “conclusively established across all levels of judicial review” and could not be disturbed by a subordinate authority.
The Bench cited several landmark precedents to underscore the importance of judicial discipline:
- On Disobeying Superior Courts (Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit): The Court noted that the “deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court” and is “likely to subvert the Rule of Law.”
- On Judicial Integrity (C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee): “Judicial office is essentially a public trust… Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process.”
- On Consistency (M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka): “The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions.”
Decision and Final Orders
Declaring the recall order dated May 15, 2025, as void, the Court held:
“The position that an order passed without jurisdiction is nullity, needs no exposition and as such, the Rent Authority’s order for recall being 15th May 2025, is declared void.”
While the Court had initially issued a show-cause notice for contempt to the concerned officer, it accepted an unconditional apology and clarified that the proceedings would not impact the officer’s career progression. However, it directed the tenant to deposit costs of ₹5 Lakhs with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society for the gross abuse of the legal process.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Rajesh Goyal v. M/s Laxmi Constructions & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 27184 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date: March 25, 2026
