26 September 2025 Dispute with Tenant/Landlord >> Property & Real Estate  

The petitioner, through Mr. Mohd. Faisal and Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advocates on Record, as well as Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, prayed for relief against the order of eviction. But the Court held no reasons to entertain the petition, citing a case of similar fact (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8181 of 2025), rejected on March 28, 2025, involving the same landlord and similar tenancy matters. In the previous case, the Court had refused to intervene, on grounds of lack of sufficient grounds, and allowed the tenant time up to May 31, 2025, to vacate the premises, subject to stipulations like the settlement of rent arrears within one month and the payment of regular rent thereafter.

 

 

In the current order, the Supreme Court adopted a similar path. The petition was rejected, but the petitioner has been allowed to vacate the property by November 30, 2025. This is subject to the condition of paying off all the arrears of rent within a month and making regular monthly payments of rent. The Court added the condition that the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises should be handed over by the petitioner on or before the said date and avoid transfer or creation of third-party rights in the property. To enforce compliance, the petitioner is obligated to submit an undertaking to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Bombay High Court within three weeks. If this undertaking is not submitted, the landlord can proceed to execute the eviction decree, making the extended timeline ineffective. Default in complying with these conditions may be considered a contempt of the Court's order.

Interestingly, the judgment was delivered without notice to the respondents. Nonetheless, the Court made it clear that the landlord could approach the Court in case he felt aggrieved due to the extension allowed for vacating the premises. All pending applications on the case were disposed of, bringing the proceedings to an end.