In a sharply worded judgment, the Supreme Court has refused to entertain a tenant’s fresh challenge in a prolonged eviction dispute from Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, calling it a “gross abuse of process of law.” The Court also imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the tenant for repeatedly attempting to reopen a matter that had already reached finality.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolves around a residential property in Saharanpur, where eviction proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control law.
The Rent Authority had initially ordered eviction of the tenant in September 2022 after confirming the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. This decision was upheld by the appellate authority, the Allahabad High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court itself.
Read also:- No Right to Choose Posting: Delhi High Court Upholds KVS Transfer Despite Health Plea
Despite this, the tenant continued filing multiple legal remedies - including a Special Leave Petition, review petition, and miscellaneous applications all of which were dismissed. The Court had even granted time till March 31, 2025, to vacate the premises.
Even after exhausting remedies, the tenant approached the Rent Authority again with a restoration application. Surprisingly, this application was allowed in May 2025.
This prompted the landlord to challenge the order before the High Court, which set aside the restoration and directed reconsideration. The tenant then approached the Supreme Court again, leading to the present proceedings.
The Bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, expressed strong disapproval of the tenant’s conduct.
“The present petition… is nothing short of gross abuse of process of law, and overreaching the orders passed by this Court,” the bench observed.
Read also:- Second Application for Compensation Re-determination Maintainable After High Court Ruling: Supreme Court
The Court noted that the issue of landlord-tenant relationship had already been conclusively decided across all judicial levels. It emphasized that once the Supreme Court had directed eviction, no subordinate authority could pass orders that effectively nullify that decision.
On the conduct of the Rent Authority, the Court pointed out a serious jurisdictional error. It held that the authority exceeded its powers by entertaining issues related to property title - something that falls within the domain of civil courts, not rent authorities.
The bench explained,
“The jurisdiction of the Rent Authority… shall not extend to the question of title or ownership of premises.”
Issue of Jurisdiction and Judicial Discipline
The Court underlined that orders passed without jurisdiction are legally void. It declared the Rent Authority’s restoration order dated May 15, 2025, as a nullity.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Row, Says Dispute Belongs Before Family Court
The judgment also stressed the importance of judicial discipline. Referring to past rulings, the Court reiterated that lower authorities must follow decisions of higher courts without deviation.
It remarked that ignoring binding orders undermines the rule of law and creates uncertainty in the justice system.
Show Cause Notice to Authority
The Supreme Court had earlier issued a show cause notice to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Saharanpur, who acted as Rent Authority, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
The Court noted that the ADM had acted in dual capacities first preparing a report questioning the landlord’s title, and then relying on it while acting as Rent Authority. This overlap, the Court said, was impermissible under law.
However, after the officer tendered an unconditional apology, the Court accepted it and clarified that the proceedings would not affect the officer’s career.
Declining to entertain the tenant’s petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh to be deposited with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.
The Court also closed all pending applications, bringing the long-standing litigation to an end.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajesh Goyal vs. M/s Laxmi Constructions & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27184 of 2025)
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: March 25, 2026
