The Supreme Court bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, expressing strong displeasure, held two tenants in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, guilty of contempt for willfully defying the court’s order to vacate the rented property. The court made its strong disapproval unmistakably clear in its order.

Court’s Missive

One tenant was sentenced to three months of civil imprisonment and directed to be taken into custody, lodged in Tihar Jail, and fined ₹1 lakh payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two months; failure to pay would result in an additional one-month jail term.

Given the second tenant’s age of 82 years, the Court refrained from incarcerating him but imposed a ₹5 lakh fine, also due within two months, with a one-month civil imprisonment penalty in case of non-payment.

Additionally, the District Judge of Saharanpur was instructed to appoint a bailiff, assisted by police, to take possession of the premises within two weeks and prepare an inventory of any belongings found, keeping them securely for delivery upon demand.

The bench expressed, “We are of the considered view that both the contemnors are guilty of deliberate and willful non-compliance of the directions passed by this Court and repeatedly attempting to make incorrect and misleading statements contrary to the record,” emphasizing the gravity of the tenants’ actions. However, the Court noted leniency towards Contemnor No. 1 by replacing the sentence with a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, payable within two months, failing which the one-month civil imprisonment will be enforced.

As for Contemnor No. 2, “looking to his conduct, as indicted hereinabove, we are inclined to punish him by sentence for a period of three months' civil prison and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two months from today. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve a further period of civil prison for one month. He shall be taken into custody by the security personnel of this Court and be handed over to the jail authorities of Tihar Jail, Delhi to serve the sentence as directed," the Court added.

Background:

The dispute in the instant case emerged from an order issued by the Allahabad High Court that upheld the Rent Control Authority’s directive to evict the tenants. The tenants had contended that eviction proceedings initiated by an unregistered firm were barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, a stance rejected by the High Court, which clarified that the right to evict is a statutory right under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and not a contractual one.

The Supreme Court had originally mandated the tenants to vacate by March 31, 2025, with extensions granted up to September 23, 2025. Their failure to comply led to contempt proceedings and the resulting stringent orders.

While addressing the contempt plea, the Apex Court reviewed the protracted litigation involving the property in question located at Bungalow Hall Municipality No. 2/1410/11 (Old No.43), Rose Bank, Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road, Saharanpur.

Proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021, were registered as Case No. 2082/2022 (Ashish Kumar v. Harsh Goyal). On September 7, 2022, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, recognized the landlord–tenant relationship and ordered eviction within 30 days.

This decision was subsequently upheld by the District Judge on January 22, 2024, and further confirmed by the Allahabad High Court on May 14, 2024.

Despite these decisions, the tenant approached the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 21177/2024, which was dismissed on September 20, 2024. While refusing to interfere, the Court had granted time until March 31, 2025, to vacate on condition of an undertaking and arrears payment. Violations were explicitly warned to be treated as acts of non-compliance.

The tenant subsequently filed a review petition which was dismissed on March 18, 2025, followed by a miscellaneous application that was also rejected on March 24, 2025.

The Supreme Court highlighted that these proceedings firmly established the landlord–tenant relationship and repeatedly instructed the tenant to vacate, noting, “Ordinarily, these proceedings ought to have been put to rest here. However, it is not so,” underscoring the complexity of the case.

Even after multiple dismissals, the tenant filed a restoration application (Case No. RST/2169/2025) before the Rent Authority challenging the original eviction order from September 2022, which surprisingly was allowed on May 15, 2025.

The landlord challenged this in the High Court through Writ Appeal No. 8420/2025, resulting in the Rent Authority’s order being set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration within three months.

This sequence culminated in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court that led to the contempt proceedings now concluded.

Case Details : M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTION & ANR. VERSUS HARSH GOYAL & ANR.

Appearance:

Advocate for Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Ali Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.

Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sagar Pahune Patil, AOR Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR