The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Rent Authority recalling an eviction decision was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity in law.
The Court noted that the landlord-tenant relationship and eviction had already attained finality through multiple judicial proceedings. In such circumstances, it found it impermissible for the Rent Authority to entertain a restoration application that effectively reopened concluded issues. The Bench of Justice Snjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that:
“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…. 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.”
It further held that the Rent Authority exceeded its statutory limits by examining questions of title, which fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts. The Court also disapproved of the same officer acting in dual capacities, allowing findings in one role to influence adjudication in another.
Emphasising settled principles, the Court reiterated that orders passed without jurisdiction are void, and that subordinate authorities must adhere to binding judicial decisions.
The Court also underscored the importance of judicial discipline and comity, observing that disregard of final orders of higher courts undermines the rule of law. It noted:
“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 situation.”
While issuing a show cause notice to the concerned authority for such conduct, the Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered and closed the proceedings while clarifying that these proceedings in no way shall impact the career progression of the concerned judicial officer.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR
Respondents- Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Ali Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Sangwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Swami, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Singh Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashasvi Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, AOR
