Supreme Court Upholds Tenant Eviction in Property Dispute: Key Legal Insights

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Amit Kumar vs. Nihal Singh & Ors., resolving a long-standing property dispute between a landlord and tenants. The case revolved around the eviction of tenants from a property in Village Nagla Bhambhu Jaat, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, and the recovery of unpaid rents. The judgment, dated April 23, 2025, was delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, who overturned the decisions of the lower courts and reinstated the original decree favoring the landlord.

The dispute began when the appellant, Amit Kumar, along with respondent No. 3, purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated August 12, 1997. The property was rented to respondent No. 1, Nihal Singh, who operated a service station on the premises. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 500, but from March 2021, the tenant stopped paying rent. Later, it was discovered that the tenant had sublet the property to respondent No. 2 without the landlord’s consent, leading to legal action.

The appellant filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Hathras, seeking eviction and recovery of unpaid rents. The court decreed the suit in favor of the landlord on July 10, 2019. However, the tenants challenged this decision in a revision petition, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hathras, on May 25, 2023. The matter was remanded to the trial court to determine whether the property was ‘open land,’ which would affect the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-settlement-in-hotel-property-dispute-key-legal-insights/

The landlord then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 227 of the Constitution, but the High Court upheld the Revisional Court’s order. Dissatisfied, the landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the tenants had admitted in their written statement that the property included structures like a room, water tank, service station, and jet pump. This admission contradicted their claim that the property was ‘open land.’ The Court observed:

“When there has been an admission on the part of the defendants/respondents herein that the suit schedule property consisted of a room, a water tank, a service station, and a jet pump installed with electricity connection which was being used for the purpose of washing of vehicles, then it cannot be said that the suit schedule property was an open land as such.”

The Court further emphasized that the Revisional Court and the High Court erred in remanding the matter, as the tenants’ admission rendered the jurisdictional issue moot. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and reinstated the trial court’s decree, directing the tenants to vacate the property by October 31, 2025, and pay the arrears of rent.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-condoned-delay-in-land-acquisition-compensation-appeals-key-ruling/

This judgment underscores the importance of admissions in legal proceedings and clarifies the jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts in cases involving properties with structures. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s role in correcting errors made by lower courts, ensuring justice for aggrieved parties.

Petitioner Name: Amit Kumar.
Respondent Name: Nihal Singh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Village Nagla Bhambhu Jaat, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras.
Judgment Date: 23-04-2025.
Result: allowed.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: amit-kumar-vs-nihal-singh-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-04-2025.pdf