Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order

"We are at a loss to conceive of a situation where an action of the Rent Authority can render the finding confirmed on appeal to the High Court and this Court a nullity", In a striking case of judicial indiscipline and procedural abuse, the Supreme Court of India declared void a Rent Authority's restoration order that sought to reopen eviction proceedings which had attained finality through dismissal of an SLP, Review Petition, and Miscellaneous Application by the Supreme Court itself.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held the filing of yet another petition — after furnishing an undertaking to vacate — to be "nothing short of gross abuse of process of law, and overreaching the orders passed by this Court."

The Court also issued and subsequently discharged a contempt notice against the Rent Authority officer — who had passed the restoration order — upon acceptance of an unconditional apology.

The dispute concerned a bungalow in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Rent Authority (Additional District Magistrate) ordered eviction of the tenant in September 2022 for non-payment of rent under Section 21(2) of the UP Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021. The First Appellate Court, the High Court, and finally the Supreme Court — all confirmed the eviction.

When the SLP was dismissed on September 20, 2024, the tenant sought six months to vacate. The Supreme Court granted time till March 31, 2025, subject to payment of arrears, and directed the tenant to file an undertaking to vacate — which was duly filed.

The tenant then filed a Review Petition. Dismissed. Then a Miscellaneous Application. Dismissed. Then — after the undertaking — a restoration application before the very Rent Authority, premised on the allegation that the landlord's sale deed was forged. The Rent Authority allowed it. The High Court set aside the restoration order and remitted the matter. The tenant then filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court — again, after the undertaking had already been given.

Filing SLP After Giving Undertaking to Vacate Is Gross Abuse of Process

The Court refused to entertain the SLP on merits at the threshold. It noted that the petition was filed on September 19, 2025 — well after the undertaking to vacate had been furnished before the High Court's Registrar.

"This, in our considered view, is nothing short of the gross abuse of process of law, and overreaching the orders passed by this Court," the bench held.

The Court imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to be deposited with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.

Rent Authority Had No Jurisdiction to Entertain a Title Challenge

The restoration application before the Rent Authority rested on the allegation that the landlord's sale deed was forged and that the landlord had no valid title.

The Court held this was jurisdictionally impermissible. Section 38(2) of the UP Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021, expressly limits the Rent Authority's jurisdiction to the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and "shall not extend to the question of title or ownership of premises."

"The question of title which was sought to be challenged by the tenant in the restoration proceedings is squarely within the domain of the Civil Court, and not the Rent Authority," the Court held.

The remedy available to the tenant was a suit for declaration before the Civil Court — not a restoration application before the Rent Authority.

"An Order Passed Without Jurisdiction Is a Nullity — Needs No Exposition"

On this basis, the Court declared the restoration order dated May 15, 2025 void. "The position that an order passed without jurisdiction is nullity, needs no exposition," the Court stated, and applied it without ceremony.

The Same Officer Wore Two Hats — And Mixed Them Up

The case took a more troubling turn on scrutiny of how the restoration order came to be passed in the first place.

The Rent Authority who allowed the restoration application was the same officer — the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur — who had, in her administrative capacity, submitted a Report dated December 31, 2024 concluding that the landlord's sale deeds were obtained by concealing relevant facts and violated the Registration Act, 1908.

She then, wearing her other hat as Rent Authority, relied on her own administrative findings to allow the restoration application.

"Simply put, the investigation entrusted to her by virtue of being Additional District Magistrate, pervaded her in exercising the power as the Rent Authority," the Court held. "This, in our considered view, is impermissible for the latter is a special statute with clearly defined areas of action."

"Judicial Office Is Essentially a Public Trust"

The Court issued a show cause notice for contempt against the officer. Upon receiving an unconditional apology, it discharged the notice — but not before setting out a stern reminder on judicial discipline, drawing from four earlier Supreme Court decisions.

From Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit (1973): "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… is likely to subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law."

From Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation (1992): "The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities."

From C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995): "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."

The Court was careful to note that these general observations were not a specific comment on the concerned officer's character, and clarified that "these proceedings in no way shall impact the career progression of the concerned judicial officer."

Jurisdiction of Trial Courts Must Always Be Kept in Mind

Closing its judgment, the Court issued a pointed reminder to all judicial officers at the trial court level: "Jurisdiction especially at the level of the Trial Courts is a creation of specific statutes and the learned judges must be cognizant, always of the differences in the jurisdiction conferred upon them thereby."

Date of Decision: March 25, 2026