When Possession Meets Protection: Supreme Court on Tenant Safety During Eviction.


10 November 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law   |   Dispute with Tenant/Landlord >> Property & Real Estate  

The Supreme Court, in its recent order in M.A. No. 2055/2025 in SLP(C) No. 29539/2025 titled Kishan Yadav v. Bhaju Ram Yadav, highlights two important principles which arise regularly in disputes between landlord and tenant: the sanctity of undertakings given to the court and the right of the tenant to personal safety until possession is lawfully handed over.

The Court had, earlier on 16 October 2025, directed the tenant to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the landlord with effect from 31 March 2026, on the condition that an undertaking was filed and payment of occupational charges was continued. This is a well-established practice that maintains orderly transition without abuse of judicial leniency.

 

 

However, when the matter came up again on 10 November 2025, the Court was informed about a physical altercation between landlord and tenant, followed by registration of an FIR. The tenant, apprehensive of further trouble, asked for protection. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan took note of its earlier directions and made it clear that since the extended time still subsisted, the landlord must wait till 31 March 2026 to recover possession. As for any threat to life or limb, the Court told the tenant to avail appropriate legal remedies before competent authorities, thus making it clear that criminal and civil remedies run on separate tracks.

The said order, though short, epitomizes the pragmatic approach of the judiciary: to maintain the prestige of the possession orders while ensuring that none of the parties takes the law into their hands. It reiterates that there has to be reciprocity in compliance with the undertakings-peaceful possession for lawful time. Even landlords, for whom the decree might come out favorable, have to show restraint until the clock runs out. The tenants must act bona fide to vacate as promised without misusing the extension of time.

Ultimately, the Court made a fine balance in granting no new relief while protecting the essential rule of law in the relationship between physical control of property and personal safety under the same roof.