Supreme Court Questions Propriety Of In-Charge Judge Passing Ex Parte Eviction Order When Presiding Judge Was On Leave

The Supreme Court has questioned the propriety of an In-charge Judge passing orders on merits in a rent matter when the regular judge was on leave, without issuing notice to the affected party. Observing that such a course of action is “prima facie not tenable”, the Court emphasised that concerns relating to judicial procedure and institutional functioning cannot be brushed aside merely because the petitioner had agreed to vacate the premises.

Accordingly, the Bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to submit a detailed report explaining how the course adopted was justified. The Court said the report must spell out the procedure required to be followed when judges are on leave, the extent to which In-charge Judges are empowered to pass orders, and place on record the relevant rules, regulations and administrative instructions governing such situations for the Court's consideration.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, in the order passed on December 17, observed :

"In our view, in a rent matter when the Judge is on leave, passing an order by the In-charge Judge on merits without notice prima facie is not tenable. Although the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises but the fact/issue remains regarding propriety of functioning of the Courts and of following the procedure. Therefore, we direct that the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana shall submit his report as to how and in what manner the recourse as followed is justified. The report would indicate the procedure required to be followed in case Judges are on leave and to what extent, the orders can be passed by the In-charge Judge. Rules, regulations and instructions connected to the said procedure be placed for consideration before us in the report."

The Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by Anjali Foundation challenging an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision as infructuous following the eviction order.

The High Court had held that the tenant's challenge to an earlier order fixing provisional rent had become infructuous because an ejectment order had been passed on November 24, 2025.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the eviction proceedings were pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, who was on leave on the relevant date. According to him, the matter was instead taken up by the In-Charge Judge, acting as Rent Controller, who passed an ex parte eviction order without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing.

Rohatgi told the Court that while his client was not challenging the eviction order and would vacate the premises by February 28, 2026, the manner in which the order was passed raised grave concerns regarding jurisdiction and procedure. He argued that when a judge is on leave, the In-Charge Judge may only pass urgent interim orders granting protection and cannot assume jurisdiction to decide the matter finally, particularly without hearing the affected party.

The Bench noted that, prima facie, passing a final order in a rent matter by an In-Charge Judge, without notice, was not tenable. While recording the petitioner's undertaking to vacate the premises by the stipulated date, the Court emphasised that the broader issue of judicial propriety and procedure could not be ignored.

The Registrar General has been given liberty to seek explanations from the judges concerned or from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The report is to be placed before the Court before the next date of hearing.

The matter is scheduled to be listed again on February 2, 2026.

Appearances: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Anshuman Srivastva, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Ms. Ameesha Malhotra, Mr. Pranay Chitale, Mr. Aditya Dutta, Ms. Smiti Verma, Advocates, and Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR.

Case : Anjali Foundation v. Anil Mehra | SLP (c) 36228/2025

Click here to read the order