On September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court held two tenants in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its orders to vacate rented premises.
One tenant was sentenced to three months of civil imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh, to be served in Tihar Jail, while the other, aged 82, was fined ₹5 lakh but spared jail due to age.
The Court further directed local authorities to take possession of the property within two weeks, with police assistance, and to inventory and safeguard the tenants’ belongings.
Supreme Court’s Firm Yet Compassionate Judgment
A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi condemned the tenants’ deliberate disobedience and misleading assertions. The younger tenant was sentenced to civil imprisonment of three months and fined ₹1 lakh payable within two months; failure to pay would result in additional imprisonment of one month.
The elderly tenant was fined ₹5 lakh, with a similar clause on imprisonment if the fine remained unpaid. The ruling instructed the District Judge of Saharanpur to appoint a bailiff with police assistance to take possession of the premises within 14 days, document all items found, and hold them safely for future delivery.
A Long-Standing Legal Dispute with Multiple Appeals
This case originates from a 2022 eviction directive by the Rent Control Authority upheld by Allahabad High Court, reinforcing landlord rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, against tenants’ pleas citing the Partnership Act, 1932. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Supreme Court to vacate until September 23, 2025, the tenants refused compliance, prompting contempt proceedings.
Extensive litigation included dismissed Special Leave Petitions, rejected review petitions, and a challenged restoration application granted temporarily but ultimately overturned by the High Court. This saga highlights the complexities surrounding tenant eviction processes, rights, and court enforcement.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Supreme Court’s judgement underscores the imperative of obedience to court orders for preserving the sanctity of law and property rights. While the Court showed leniency based on age, deliberate defiance risks undermining public faith in the judiciary.
This episode sheds light on the challenges faced in balancing empathy for vulnerable tenants with the rightful claims of landlords. It invites reflection on reforming eviction laws and dispute resolution mechanisms to facilitate timely, fair outcomes while minimising conflict and ensuring dignity for all citizens.
