The Supreme Court has drawn a hard line in a long-drawn landlord-tenant battle from Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh—sending one defiant tenant to Tihar Jail and penalizing his octogenarian co-tenant with a hefty fine of ₹5 lakh.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi found the duo guilty of contempt after they repeatedly ignored clear orders to vacate the rented property despite years of litigation and multiple extensions.
One contemnor, showing no intent to comply, has been sentenced to three months’ civil imprisonment. He will be taken into custody and lodged in Tihar, with an additional month behind bars if he fails to pay the imposed fine of ₹1 lakh within two months.
His 82-year-old co-tenant avoided jail due to age but was hit with a stern financial penalty—₹5 lakh to be paid within two months, or else face one month in civil prison.
The Court also ordered the District Judge of Saharanpur to ensure that possession of the premises is secured within two weeks. A bailiff, assisted by police, is to take control of the property, with the tenants’ belongings inventoried and placed in safe custody until claimed.
The bench minced no words: the tenants were guilty of “deliberate and willful non-compliance” and had even attempted to mislead the Court. While one was granted leniency due to age, the other was sent straight to jail.
A Battle Stretching Across Courts
The dispute traces back to an eviction order issued under the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021. The Rent Control Authority, followed by the District Judge, and later the Allahabad High Court, all upheld the landlord’s right to reclaim possession of the bungalow located at Rose Bank, Ahmed Bagh/Chandranagar, Court Road, Saharanpur.
The tenants tried every possible defense—including claiming that proceedings by an unregistered firm were barred under partnership law—but courts consistently rejected the arguments, clarifying that eviction rights flow from statutory provisions, not contracts.
The Supreme Court had already granted generous extensions, first until March 31, 2025, then until September 23, 2025, for the tenants to vacate. When those deadlines were ignored, contempt proceedings became inevitable.
What began as a rent dispute has now culminated in one tenant behind bars, another facing financial penalties, and the Court ensuring that the landlord’s property is finally restored.