ADM Acting As Rent Authority Cannot Set Aside Findings Based On Its Own Report; Exercise Of Such Dual Role Impermissible: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that an authority acting under a special statute cannot rely upon findings recorded in another administrative capacity to unsettle concluded adjudication, particularly where jurisdiction is limited, and findings have attained finality.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an authority functioning under a special statute cannot exercise its powers in a manner influenced by findings recorded by it in another administrative capacity, particularly where such exercise travels beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the statute.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant sought restoration of proceedings after eviction orders had attained finality up to the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed: “the Rent Authority, and the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, who prepared the Report, are one and the very same. So, on the basis of the findings arrived at by her, in one capacity, in yet another capacity, she has allowed the application for restoration. Simply put, the investigation entrusted to her by virtue of being the Additional District Magistrate pervaded her in exercising the power as the Rent Authority. This, in our considered view, is impermissible for the latter is a special statute with clearly defined areas of action”.
“As the Additional District Magistrate, she would have been authorised to entertain the same should the applicable rules so permit, but, however, she could not have set aside, while acting as the Rent Authority, something that was in the clear purview of her other role”, the Bench further added.
Kaushik Choudhury, AOR, appeared for the appellant. Senior Advocate Arvind Sangwan appeared for the respondents.
Background
The dispute pertained to eviction proceedings initiated under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021. The Rent Authority had held the existence of landlord tenant relationship and directed the eviction of the tenant.
The order was affirmed successively by the Appellate Authority, the High Court, and ultimately by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition and granted time to vacate the premises. Even the review and miscellaneous applications were dismissed.
Despite the finality of these proceedings, the tenant filed a restoration application before the Rent Authority, which was surprisingly allowed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur, acting as Rent Authority.
The High Court set aside this restoration order, leading to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Apex Court emphasised that the landlord-tenant relationship had been conclusively established through multiple levels of adjudication, including affirmation by the Supreme Court. It was observed that once the matter had attained finality, the Rent Authority could not pass an order that would effectively nullify findings affirmed by superior courts.
The Court noted that the direction to vacate the premises constituted a binding and operative order, and any subsequent attempt to reopen the issue would undermine judicial finality.
The Court analysed the statutory framework governing the Rent Authority and held that its jurisdiction is circumscribed by the statute. Referring to Section 38 of the Act, the Court reiterated that the Rent Authority is confined to examining the existence of landlord tenant relationship and cannot adjudicate upon questions of title or ownership.
It was observed that the issue of title raised by the tenant fell squarely within the domain of civil courts and could not be entertained in proceedings under the Rent Control statute.
The Court took note of the dual role played by the same officer, who acted both as an Additional District Magistrate while preparing a report and as a Rent Authority while deciding the restoration application.
The Court held that the Rent Authority and the Additional District Magistrate who prepared the Report were one and the very same, who, based on the findings arrived at by her, in one capacity, in yet another capacity, she has allowed the application for restoration.
The Court clarified that an authority exercising quasi-judicial powers under a special statute must remain confined to the jurisdiction conferred upon it and cannot be influenced by findings recorded in another administrative role.
The Court noted that the tenant’s grievance regarding alleged forgery of sale deeds could have been pursued through appropriate legal remedies. However, the Court stated, the Rent Authority could not assume jurisdiction over such issues or set aside earlier findings on that basis.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. It held that the restoration order passed by the Rent Authority was void as it exceeded statutory jurisdiction and sought to unsettle findings already affirmed by superior courts.
The Court strongly emphasised the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to binding precedent. Relying on Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit (1973) and Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance (1992), the Court observed that failure to follow binding decisions undermines the authority of courts and the rule of law.
It noted that disregard of settled legal principles and binding orders leads to uncertainty and disrupts the orderly administration of justice.
The Bench remarked: “… the 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”.
The Court noted that a show cause notice had been issued to the Additional District Magistrate for entertaining and allowing the restoration application in the face of binding orders. Upon consideration of the response, the Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the officer and clarified that the proceedings would not impact her career progression.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court reiterated that “jurisdiction, especially at the level of the Trial Courts, is a creation of specific statutes and the learned judges must be cognizant, always, of the differences in the jurisdiction conferred upon them thereby”.
The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Cause Title: Rajesh Goyal v. M/s Laxmi Constructions & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 299)
Appearances
Appellant: Kaushik Choudhury, AOR
Respondents: Senior Advocate Arvind Sangwan; Advocates Deepak Swami, Shantanu Singh Sangwan, Shaurya Sahay, Manish Sharma, Yashasvi Singh; Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR