The Supreme Court has sharply criticised a Rent Control Authority in Uttar Pradesh for reopening an eviction dispute that had already travelled the full judicial ladder and reached finality. The Court underscored that once higher courts settle a matter, subordinate forums cannot revisit it on fresh grounds.
The case arose after an eviction order against a tenant had been upheld through successive stages, ultimately remaining undisturbed even before the Supreme Court. Despite this, the Rent Control Authority entertained a recall application from the tenant, who attempted to challenge the landlord’s ownership of the property — an issue effectively closed by earlier rulings.
The landlord challenged the move, and the Allahabad High Court set aside the Rent Control Authority’s decision, restoring the eviction. The tenant then approached the Supreme Court, seeking interference.
Declining to disturb the High Court’s ruling, the bench found the Rent Control Authority’s action to be a clear instance of judicial indiscipline. The Court stressed that respect for decisions of higher courts is foundational to judicial functioning, particularly when the matter has reached finality.
The judgment observed that once a binding direction for handing over vacant possession had been issued and affirmed on appeal, it was inconceivable for a subordinate authority to pass orders that effectively nullified those conclusions. Such an approach, the Court noted, undermines judicial comity and exceeds jurisdiction.
While taking exception to the conduct, the Court also recorded that the judicial officer concerned had tendered an unconditional apology. Accepting the apology, the bench clarified that the proceedings would not affect the officer’s career progression.
With these observations, the Court disposed of the appeal, leaving the eviction order intact and reinforcing the principle that lower authorities cannot reopen matters already settled by higher courts.
