Supreme Court Jails Tenant for Defying Order to Vacate Premises, Fines Elderly Co-Tenant ₹5 Lakh
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court, Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held two tenants guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its order to vacate rented premises in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and imposed civil imprisonment on one of them along with monetary penalties. The Bench sentenced one contemnor to three months’ civil imprisonment and directed that he be taken into custody and lodged in Tihar Jail. He was also ordered to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two months, failing which he will serve an additional month in prison.
The dispute arose over the possession of rented premises in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners, M/s Laxmi Construction & another, approached the Supreme Court alleging that the respondents, Harsh Goyal & another, had willfully failed to comply with earlier orders of the Court directing them to vacate the premises. The Court had issued directions on 20 September 2024 and 9 September 2025 requiring the respondents to hand over possession.
In the contempt proceedings, the petitioners contended that despite the clear orders, the respondents continued to occupy the premises and thereby obstructed compliance. The alleged contemnors were described as tenants who had failed to vacate even after repeated judicial directions.
During the hearing, the first contemnor, aged about 82 years, pleaded that no imprisonment be imposed upon him and requested that the Court consider imposing only a monetary penalty. The second contemnor, appearing in person, stated that they had begun vacating the premises in compliance with the Court’s earlier orders but stopped after receiving an order dated 22 September 2025. This subsequent order directed the Rent Controlling Authority to decide the ownership issue of the property within 90 days. The second contemnor argued that since the ownership dispute was pending, possession had not been handed over and requested leniency.
The Court noted that the contemnors’ conduct constituted deliberate and willful non-compliance with its previous orders. The Court found that they had made incorrect and misleading statements in an attempt to avoid obeying its directives. The proceedings were conducted under the Court’s contempt jurisdiction for failure to obey judicial orders. The key issue concerned the tenants’ refusal to vacate the rented premises as directed. The matter also referred to proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority but the Supreme Court asserted the enforceability of its prior orders.
The Court recorded, “we are of the view that the contemnors are guilty of deliberate and willful non-compliance of the order of this Court passed on 20.09.2024 and 09.09.2025.”
On the submissions of the first contemnor, the Court noted, “learned counsel for the contemnor No.1 submitted that the alleged contemnor is about 82 years of age and requested that the punishment of civil imprisonment may not be imposed except to direct for amount of fine.”
Regarding the second contemnor’s explanation, the Court recorded, “the contemnor No.2 appearing in person on being asked on the point of punishment, submits that in furtherance to the order of this Court, they were vacating the premises but in the meantime, the order dated 22.9.2025 was received on 24.9.2025 wherein a direction was issued that issue of ownership be decided by the Rent Controlling Authority within a period of 90 days. Therefore, they have stopped vacating the premises.”
The Court observed further, “we are of the considered view that both the contemnors are guilty of deliberate and willful non-compliance of the directions passed by this Court and repeatedly attempting to make incorrect and misleading statements contrary to the record.”
Taking a lenient stance toward the elder contemnor, the Court stated, “however, we take a lenient view so far as it relate to Contemnor No.1 is concerned and impose the fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) in place of sentence which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from today otherwise he shall serve the civil prison of one month.”
“We are inclined to punish him by sentence for a period of three months’ civil prison and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-… within two months from today. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve a further period of civil prison for one month. He shall be taken into custody by the security personnel of this Court and be handed over to the jail authorities of Tihar Jail, Delhi to serve the sentence as directed.”
“The appellate authority, i.e., District Judge, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh shall appoint a bailiff to take the possession of the premises in question with the police help… within a period of two weeks… The report of the action taken by the appellate authority be submitted to the Registrar of this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rauf Rahim, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR; Mr. Ali Rahim, Advocate; Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Advocate; Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sagar Pahune Patil, AOR; Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR
Case Title: M/s Laxmi Construction & Anr. v. Harsh Goyal & Anr.
Case Number: Contempt Petition (C) No. 218 of 2025 in SLP (C) No. 21177 of 2024
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
