Rajesh Goyal vs M/S Laxmi Construction - Civil Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### Supreme Court of India

Rajesh Goyal vs M/S Laxmi Construction on 25 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

2026 INSC 299

                                                                        REPORTABLE

                                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CIVIL APPEAL NO.                OF 2026
                             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27184 of 2025)

                        RAJESH GOYAL                                …APPELLANT(S)

                                                       VERSUS

                        M/S LAXMI
                        CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.                      …RESPONDENT(S)

                                               JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J.

Leave Granted.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the tenant challenging the
   order and judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.8420 of 2025 by
   the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17 th July 2025, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NAVEEN D Date: 2026.03.25 19:27:38 IST Reason: C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 1 of 15 allowing the landlord’s appeal thereby setting aside the order of
   the Additional District Magistrate (Administration),
   Saharanpur1, allowing the petition for restoration of proceedings,
   preferred by the appellant.

2.     Our order dated 22nd September 2025 recorded the
   

   chequered history of this dispute, in detail. We may reproduce
   the same:

“…

1. The dispute pertains to Bungalow Hall
   Municipality No.2/1410/11 (Old No.43) Rose Bank,
   Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road,
   Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Legal proceedings were
   initiated under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban
   Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 which came
   to be numbered as Case No.2082/2022 titled “Ashish
   Kumar, son of Shri Laxmi Kumar vs. Harsh Goyal,
   son of Shri Virender Goyal”.

2. The      Additional      District     Magistrate
   

   (Administration) Saharanpur-1 vide order dated
   07.09.2022 held, relationship of landlord and tenant
   to be in existence inter se the parties and directed the
   tenant (appellant herein) to vacate the disputed
   property within 30 days. Such a finding was
   affirmed by the Appellate Authority viz., District
   Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal
   No.57/2022 vide order dated 22.01.2024.

3. The High Court also by its order dated 14.05.2024
   in “Matters under Article 227 No.1821/2024”,
   confirmed these findings. Not satisfied by having
   three Courts decide against him, the tenant tried his
   luck before this Court vide SLP(C)No.21177 of
   2024 which was also dismissed on 20.09.2024
   observing as under: -

1

Rent Authority C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 2 of 15 “1. After having heard learned counsel
for the parties, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court. The
Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for minimum six months’ time to vacate the suit premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the suit premises shall be vacated by the petitioners on or before 31.03.2025 subject to payment of rent and arrears thereof. The petitioners shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents on or before 31.03.2025 and shall not part with or create third party right therein. The petitioners shall file a usual undertaking in this regard within a period of two weeks from today before the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The violation of the aforesaid terms would be treated as non-compliance of the order of this Court.

1. Pending interlocutory application(s),
   if any, is/are disposed of.

2. The tenant sought a review of the said order being
   Review Petition (C)Dy.No. 50976 of 2024 titled
   “Harsh Goyal & Anr. vs. M/s. Laxmi Construction
   & Ors.” which also was dismissed vide order dated
   18.03.2025 in the following terms:-

“Delay condoned. IA No. 31347/2025
for listing review petition in open court
is rejected. We have carefully perused
the Review Petition as also the grounds
taken in the petition. In our opinion, no
case for review of order dated
20.09.2024 is made out. The Review
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of” C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 3 of 15

1. Obstinately, the tenant filed a Misc. Application bearing No.505 of 2025 in SLP (C) No. 21177 of 2024 against the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition as also the Review Petition. This was also dismissed by order dated 24.03.2025 which reads as under:-

“1) After hearing learned counsel, we
are not inclined to entertain this
miscellaneous application. Accordingly,
the miscellaneous application is
dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of”
7. These proceedings, thus culminated in the
landlord-tenant relationship inter se the parties being
not only established beyond question but also, the
tenant having been told in no uncertain terms that he
has to vacate the disputed premises and handover the
peaceful possession thereof to the landlords.
Ordinarily, these proceeding ought to have been put
to rest here. However, it is not so.

1. Still further, the tenant filed a restoration
   application before the competent authority being
   Case No. RST/2169/2025 directed against the
   original order dated 07.09.2022. Surprisingly, this
   application stood allowed by order dated
   15.05.2025.

2. The Saga continues. Aggrieved by this order of
   the competent authority, the landlord approached the
   High Court by way of Writ Appeal No. 8420 of 2025
   which was allowed as under: -

“...Accordingly, the present petition is
allowed and impugned order dated
15.05.2025 passed by the Rent
Authority/Additional District Magistrate
(Administration), Saharanpur is set
aside. The matter is remitted to the Rent
Authority to decide the application of
respondent nos. 3 & 4 under Rule 34(H) read with Rule 11(D) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 afresh strictly in accordance
with law within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 4 of 15 copy of this order after giving due notice
and opportunity of hearing to all the
concerned parties. There shall be no
order as to costs.”
It is this order that has been challenged by way of the
present Special Leave Petition.
10. Parallelly, the landlord-initiated contempt
proceedings before this Court bearing Contempt
Petition (Civil) No.218/2025 for non-compliance of
the order passed by this Court directing the tenant to
vacate the premises on or before 31.03.2025. Order
dated 09.09.2025 by this Court passed in the
contempt petition reads as under:-

“1) In the present case, after the
judgment of eviction passed by the Rent
Controlling Authority, First Appellate
Court and by the High Court, SLP
(C)No. 21177of 2024 preferred by the
respondents-contemnors was dismissed
on 20.09.2024. While dismissing the
special leave petition, on the request
made by the contemnors, time to vacate
the premises till 31.03.2025 was
allowed. They were directed to file
undertaking which they have furnished.
Review Petition and Miscellaneous
Application for modification filed by
them were also dismissed by this Court.

2) After elapse of time on 31.03.2025,
application dated 30.04.2025 was
entertained by the Rent Controlling
Authority and order of recall of the
judgment of eviction was passed. The
said order has been set aside by the High
Court.

3) In the said situation, after hearing
learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of both the parties, we have asked
the contemnors-Mr. Harsh Goyal and
Mr. Rajesh Goyal, who are present in the
Court, whether they are ready to vacate
the premises as directed and as per the C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 5 of 15 undertaking given. It is stated by the
contemnors that they shall vacate the
premises within two weeks. Taking a
lenient view, we grant two weeks’ time
to vacate the premises, subject to further
orders of this Court.

4) Affidavit of delivery of possession
handing over the keys to the other side
be filed on or before the next date of
listing.

5) List on 26th September, 2025.

6) In case the possession has not been
handed over, the respondents-

contemnors shall remain personally
present on the next date of listing.”

1. Today this Special leave Petition against the
   above mentioned order of the High Court dated
   17.05.2025 has come up for admission. We find that
   this petition has been filed on 19.09.2025 after the
   undertaking as recorded above had been given. This,
   in our considered view, is nothing short of, the gross
   abuse of process of law, and overreaching the orders
   passed by this Court. As such, we decline to
   entertain this petition on merits.

2. However, in the attending facts and
   circumstances, the tenant is directed to deposit cost
   quantified @ Rs. 5 Lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs Only)
   with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group
   Legal Aid Society. Further, considering how the
   present proceedings have come up before this Court,
   particularly the competent authority entertaining a
   restoration application against an order in respect of
   which this Court had already dismissed a Special
   Leave Petition, we issue notice to the Authority i.e.,
   Additional District Magistrate (Administration),
   Division-Saharanpur, District: Tehsil, who had
   entertained and decided the application seeking
   review of the initial order dated 07.09.2022, as to
   why proceedings for contempt need not be initiated
   against her/him.

3. A copy of this order is directed be sent to the
   Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 6 of 15 Allahabad for necessary information and
   compliance.

4. List the matter on 31.10.2025.”
   (emphasis supplied)

5. In essence, the relationship of landlord and tenant which
   stood established and affirmed all the way upto this Court with
   the dismissal of the SLP and the order to vacate, further approved
   with the dismissal of the review petition and miscellaneous
   application, was sought to be disturbed by filing a petition before
   the Rent Authority.

6. The sole issue which survives for our consideration, in
   view of the above, is the show cause notice issued to the
   Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Division-
   Saharanpur, for having passed orders in ignorance of and in spite
   of orders passed by this Court.

7. The dispute inter se the parties is concerned with the
   eviction from tenanted premises on the ground that rent as agreed
   had not been paid. An application, was therefore, made under
   Section 21(2) of the UP Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance,
   2021 which reads as under:

“21.…
(2) The Rent Authority may, on an application made
to it by the landlord in such manner as may be
prescribed, make an order for eviction and recovery
of possession of the premises on one or more of the C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 7 of 15 following grounds, namely:-

(a) that the tenant does not agree to pay the rent
payable under section 8;

(b) that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent and
other charges payable in full as specified in sub-
section (1) of section 13 for two consecutive months,
including interest for delayed payment as may be
specified in the tenancy agreement within a period
of one month from the date of service of notice of
demand for payment of such arrears of rent and other
charges payable to the landlord:

Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member
of the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour
the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers
(Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act no. 4 of 1925) has issued
a certificate that he is serving under special
conditions within the meaning of section 3 of that
Act or where he has died by enemy action while so
serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words "two
months" in this clause shall be deemed to have been
substituted by the words "one year";

… … …”

1. It may also be noticed that the Ordinance in itself makes clear the nature of jurisdiction and power conferred thereby, is circumscribed. The relevant Section is as under, as given under the subsequently enacted legislation being UP Urban Premises Rent Control Act, 2021:

“38. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no
Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in
so far as it relates to the provisions of this Act.
(2) The jurisdiction of the Rent Authority shall be
limited to tenancy agreement submitted to it as
specified in the First Schedule and shall not extend
to the question of title or ownership of premises.” C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 8 of 15

1. It is seen that the landlord-tenant relationship inter-se the
   parties was a point beyond reproach, or in other words, have been
   conclusively established across all levels of judicial review. This
   Court, while agreeing with the findings returned by the Courts
   below, held that there was no reason to grant Special Leave to
   Appeal. 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.

2. Still further, it is an elementary and well understood
   position in law that the question of title which was sought to be
   challenged by the tenant in the restoration proceedings, alleging
   that the landlord in fact had no title, is squarely within the domain
   of the Civil Court, and not the Rent Authority, more so, when the
   statute under which the Rent Authority exists, itself states that the
   only question such an Authority can consider is the existence of
   a landlord-tenant relationship and not title.
   C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 9 of 15

3. It emanates from the record that the sale deed through
   which the rights of the property in question came to rest with the
   landlord was, apparently, forged as per the tenant. He filed an
   application before the Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur
   making such allegations and it was recommended by the said
   Authority to register a case against the landlords. When nothing
   came off this conclusion, an application was made under Section
   173(4) BNSS 2023 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur,
   seeking similar relief. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur,
   called for the record from the District Magistrate regarding the
   allegations and as a consequence thereof, the Additional District
   Magistrate, Saharanpur submitted a Report dated 31st December

4. The conclusion in the said Report is that the sale deeds
   were in violation of the Registration Act 1908 and have been
   obtained by concealing the relevant facts.

5. Before proceeding further, it be noted that the Rent
   Authority, and the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur,
   who prepared the Report, are one and the very same. So, on the
   basis of the findings arrived at by her, in one capacity, in yet
   another capacity, she has allowed the application for restoration.
   Simply put, the investigation entrusted to her by virtue of being
   Additional District Magistrate, pervaded her in exercising the
   power as the Rent Authority. This, in our considered view, is C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 10 of 15 impermissible for the latter is a special statute with clearly
   defined areas of action. On the basis of the Report, it would have
   been open for the tenant (complainant) to take appropriate
   remedies in law, for example filing a suit for declaration. As the
   Additional District Magistrate, she would have been authorized
   to entertain the same should the applicable rules so permit but,
   however, she could not have set aside, while acting as the Rent
   Authority something that was in the clear purview of her other
   role.

1. The position that an order passed without jurisdiction is
   

   nullity, needs no exposition and as such, the Rent Authority’s
   order for recall being 15th May 2025, is declared void.

2. In these facts, we may observe that the only reason this
   

   matter has resulted in the passing of this order is because the
   cherished principle of judicial discipline and adherence to
   generally accepted principles of law was put to the wayside.
   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. Yet, here we are. It has to be acknowledged that
   this is not the first time this Court is confronted with such a C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 11 of 15 situation. We may only make reference to what has been
   observed on similar past instances as follows:

In Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit2,

“15. …The analogy of the inferior court's
disobedience to the specific order of a superior court
also suggests that his conduct falls within the
purview of the law of contempt. Just as the
disobedience to a specific order of the Court
undermines the authority and dignity of the court in
a particular case, similarly 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. Indeed,
while the former conduct has repercussions on an
individual case and on a limited number of persons,
the latter conduct has a much wider and more
disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to
undermine the constitutional authority and respect of
the High Court, generally, but is also likely to
subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing
uncertainty and confusion in the administration of
law.”

In Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd.3,

“6. … The principles of judicial discipline require
that the orders of the higher appellate authorities
should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate
authorities....”

In C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee4,
“Duty of the Judge to maintain high standard of
conduct. Its judicial individualism — Whether
protection imperative?
2
(1973) 1 SCC 446 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 443 4 (1995) 5 SCC 457 C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 12 of 15

1. Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep most exacting standards of propriety in judicial conduct. 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. Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and enhance public image, not only of the Judge but the court itself. It is, therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge's official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than that expected of a layman and also higher than that expected of an advocate. In fact, even his private life must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher than those deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the fallen standard in the society.

… … …

1. To keep the stream of justice clean and pure, the Judge must be endowed with sterling character, impeccable integrity and upright behaviour. Erosion thereof would undermine the efficacy of the rule of law and the working of the Constitution itself. The Judges of higher echelons, therefore, should not be mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles, human failings and weak character which may be found in those in other walks of life. They should be men of fighting faith with tough fibre not susceptible to any pressure, economic, political or of any sort. The actual as well as the apparent independence of C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 13 of 15 judiciary would be transparent only when the office-

holders endow those qualities which would operate
as impregnable fortress against surreptitious
attempts to undermine the independence of the
judiciary. In short, the behaviour of the Judge is the
bastion for the people to reap the fruits of the
democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis
rocks the bottom of the rule of law.”

In M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka5,

           “8. … The doctrine of binding precedent helps in
           promoting certainty and consistency in judicial
           decisions and enables an organic development of the
           law besides providing assurance to the individual as
           to the consequences of transactions forming part of
           the daily affairs. …”

1.   This general position has been stated only for the purpose
   

   of reiterating the position and is not to be construed as a comment
   on the actions of the particular officer whose orders are subject
   matter of scrutiny in this case.

2.   On the show cause notice issued by this Court, the Rent
   

   Authority has tendered an unconditional apology. We accept the
   same without reproducing here the details thereof. We make it
   clear that these proceedings in no way shall impact the career
   progression of the concerned judicial officer.

5 (2003) 7 SCC 517 C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 14 of 15

1. We may only observe in the end, that 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. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand closed.

………………………………………….…..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)

               ……………………………………..……….J.
              (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi;

March 25, 2026 C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 15 of 15