The Supreme Court has faulted a Rent Control Authority in Uttar Pradesh for reopening eviction proceedings that had already attained finality, including affirmation by the Supreme Court itself.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh considered a case in which the Rent Control Authority entertained an application filed by the tenant seeking recall of the eviction order. The tenant had questioned the landlord’s ownership of the premises, despite the eviction having been upheld through the judicial hierarchy and having reached finality.
The respondent-landlord challenged the Rent Control Authority’s decision before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court set aside the Authority’s order restoring the proceedings and ruled in favour of the landlord.
The tenant subsequently approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s judgment.
Supreme Court Finds Judicial Indiscipline
Declining to interfere with the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, held that the Rent Control Authority acted without jurisdiction in recalling the matter. The Court described the conduct as contrary to established principles of judicial discipline.
The Bench emphasised that once a matter attains finality, subordinate authorities cannot reopen it in a manner that undermines binding judicial determinations.
“Respect for the authority of orders passed post adjudication by a judicial activity, be it this Court or the High Court is a basic principle of judicial comity, more so, upon attaining finality. The principle of nullity of jurisdiction is also common knowledge and well established,” the Court observed.
Finality Of Eviction Order Cannot Be Undermined
The Court further noted that a clear direction had already been issued for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord. That direction, it held, remained binding and operative.
“It was however ordered that the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question be handed over to the landlord. This became a binding and operative direction. When this is the direction occupying the field, we are at a loss to conceive of a situation where an action of the Rent Authority can, in effect, render the finding confirmed on appeal to the High Court as also this Court, a nullity by compromising the basis therefor,” the Bench stated.
Apology By Judicial Officer Accepted
The Court recorded that the judicial officer who functioned as the Rent Control Authority had tendered an unconditional apology. Accepting the same, the Bench clarified that the proceedings would not adversely affect the officer’s career progression.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title and Appearance
Cause Title: Rajesh Goyal v. M/s Laxmi Constructions & Ors.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR; Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ali Rahim, Advocate; Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Sangwan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Swami, Advocate; Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Sahil Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Saurabh Sharma, AOR; Mrs. Sonali Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Palak Mathur, Advocate; Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Advocate.
Also Read: SC On SC Status After Re-Coversion.
