RAJESH GOYAL vs. M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTION

PDF
C.A. No.-004076-004076 - 2026Supreme Court2026 INSC 29925 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHAuthor: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL15 pages
For Petitioner: KAUSHIK CHOUDHURY

No AI summary yet for this case.

2026 INSC 299 C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 1 of 15

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION

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)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL J. Leave Granted.

2.

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 17th July 2025, Digitally signed by NAVEEN D Date: 2026.03.25 19:27:38 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

C.A.No…of 2026@SLP©No.27184/2025 Page 2 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.

3.

Our order dated 22nd September 2025 recorded the chequered history of this dispute, in detail. We may reproduce the same: “…

2.

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 son of Shri Virender Goyal”.

3.

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. 4. 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 3 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.

2.

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