Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Without Clear Finding of Rent Default: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that an eviction order cannot be passed when there is no clear finding on whether the tenant had actually defaulted on payment of rent.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran said that the eviction order passed against a deceased tenant was legally void, as the challenge to the revisional order could not have been decided without first substituting the deceased tenant with his legal representatives.

The case arose from eviction proceedings relating to a rented property originally owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. Both the original landlord and tenant had died during the course of the litigation and were represented by their respective legal heirs i.e. the appellants and the respondent.

The original owner had filed a suit for eviction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), alleging that the tenant had defaulted on payment of rent and continued to remain in default despite notice. Along with eviction, recovery of rent arrears was also sought. The trial court allowed the claim for arrears and ordered eviction. It also granted mesne profits for the period during which the suit remained pending.

The tenant challenged this order in revision, following which the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The landlord then approached the high court. During the pendency of those proceedings, the tenant passed away. The landlord immediately moved an application seeking substitution of the deceased tenant with his legal representatives.

This substitution was allowed on March 19, 2025, with a direction that notice be served through dasti on the legal heirs of the tenant. However, before service could be effected and before the legal representatives were formally impleaded, the writ petition was disposed of by the impugned judgment dated April 21, 2025. In that order, the high court recorded the landlord’s statement that she was not pressing the claim for mesne profits and proceeded to order eviction.

Counsel appearing for the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the tenant, argued that they were never heard before the eviction order was passed and that they continued to remain in possession of the tenanted premises.

It was further submitted that the revisional court had passed an open remand order, as there was no clear conclusion in the earlier judgment on crucial issues such as the rate of rent, whether there was any default, and whether rent had been enhanced during the relevant period.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that the landlord had given up the entire claim for rent arrears and was only seeking eviction.

The Supreme Court noted that the remand was indeed an open remand and covered not only the issue of arrears but also the issue of eviction, which itself was based on the alleged default in payment of rent.

“When there is no conclusion recorded regarding the default, there could not have been an eviction ordered. The challenge made against the revisional order could not have been disposed of without substituting the deceased-respondent/tenant with his legal representatives. The order passed against the deceased tenant is non est,” the bench observed.

Court said that while it would normally have restored the writ petition, considering the long pendency of the dispute, it was more appropriate to restore the Small Cause Case to the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur.

Noting that evidence in the case had already been completed and that the revisional court’s order related only to the conclusions drawn, the Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the Small Cause Court on January 20, 2026.

The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur was directed to grant one adjournment for hearing, hear the matter on the next date, and pass an order in accordance with law, specifically addressing the defects pointed out by the revisional court.

The civil appeal was allowed without any observations on the merits of the case, with court clarifying that the dispute must now be decided in the remanded proceedings.

Case Title: Chandra Prakash Gupta & Ors Vs Shanti Devi (Dead) Through LR

Bench: Justices Ahsanudsin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran