Supreme Court Sends Tenant To Tihar Jail For Not Vacating Premises, Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Fine On Aged Co-Tenant

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 26) held two tenants guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its order to vacate rented premises in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and imposed civil imprisonment on one of them along with monetary penalties.A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi sentenced one contemnor to three months' civil imprisonment and directed that he be taken into custody and lodged in Tihar Jail. He was also ordered to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two months, failing which he will undergo an additional one month in prison.As the second contemnor was 82 years old, the Court refrained from sending him to jail but imposed a ₹5 lakh fine, to be deposited within two months, failing which he will serve one month's civil imprisonment.The Court further directed the District Judge, Saharanpur to appoint a bailiff, with police assistance, to take possession of the premises within two weeks. If the contemnors' belongings are found inside, an inventory is to be prepared and the articles kept in safe custody for delivery on demand.“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,” the bench observed."However, we take a lenient view so far as it relate to Contemnor No. 1 is concerned and impose the fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) in place of sentence which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from today otherwise he shall serve the civil prison of one month.”, the Court said. “So far as Contemnor No. 2 is concerned, 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.BackgroundThe dispute stemmed from an order of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the Rent Control Authority's directive to evict the tenants. The tenants argued that the eviction proceedings by an unregistered firm were barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the right to evict is a statutory right under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not a contractual one.The Supreme Court had earlier directed the tenants to vacate by March 31, 2025, later granting extensions until a final deadline of September 23, 2025. Their continued failure to comply led to contempt proceedings and the Court's stringent order.The Supreme Court, while dealing with the contempt plea, traced the long history of litigation concerning the disputed property, Bungalow Hall Municipality No. 2/1410/11 (Old No.43), Rose Bank, Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.Proceedings were initiated under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021, registered as Case No. 2082/2022 (Ashish Kumar v. Harsh Goyal). On September 7, 2022, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, found the landlord–tenant relationship to exist and directed the tenant to vacate within 30 days. This finding was upheld by the District Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 57/2022 on January 22, 2024, and further confirmed by the Allahabad High Court on May 14, 2024.Undeterred, 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 granted time until March 31, 2025 to vacate, subject to an undertaking and payment of arrears. The Court also cautioned that violation would amount to non-compliance.A review petition was then filed by the tenant (Review Petition (C) Dy. No. 50976/2024), which was dismissed on March 18, 2025, with the Court reiterating that no case for review was made out. A further miscellaneous application was also rejected on March 24, 2025.The Supreme Court remarked that these proceedings conclusively established the landlord–tenant relationship and repeatedly directed the tenant to vacate. “Ordinarily, these proceedings ought to have been put to rest here. However, it is not so,” the bench observed.Despite successive dismissals, the tenant moved a restoration application (Case No. RST/2169/2025) before the Rent Authority challenging the original September 2022 order. Surprisingly, the authority allowed the plea on May 15, 2025.Aggrieved, the landlord challenged this before the High Court, which, in Writ Appeal No. 8420/2025, set aside the Rent Authority's...

Supreme Court Sends Tenant To Tihar Jail For Not Vacating Premises, Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Fine On Aged Co-Tenant

Yash Mittal

Tags