The Supreme Court of India on September 8, 2025, pulled up a tenant who attempted to wriggle out of an undertaking given to the court regarding the payment of rent arrears. The tenant claimed that the undertaking was made by his advocate without authority, but the Court rejected this explanation, stressing that judicial records cannot be disowned lightly.
The bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed the tenant’s petition with a cost of ₹10,000, directing that the amount be deposited in the Punjab Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from eviction proceedings where the tenant was required to deposit admitted arrears of rent as per Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
During the High Court proceedings, the tenant’s advocate gave an undertaking to deposit rent arrears. However, when the tenant defaulted, he attempted to backtrack, claiming that his lawyer had exceeded instructions and given an undertaking without his consent.
The High Court, finding this explanation unconvincing, struck off the tenant’s defence for failure to comply. Challenging this, the tenant approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Strong Observations
The Supreme Court was unsparing in its criticism of the tenant’s conduct. The bench noted that the High Court’s order recorded the tenant’s presence in court and his express instructions to counsel, which clearly undermined his claim of ignorance.
Emphasizing the sanctity of judicial records, the Court stated that such records must be treated as sacrosanct and conclusive evidence of proceedings in court.
In strong words, the Court observed:
“We are not impressed by the said argument on account of recalcitrant attitude exhibited by the petitioner before the High Court and having made an attempt to lay the blame at the doors of the learned advocate who appeared on his/her behalf though he had appeared in court and had instructed the advocate to make such statement and had been denied. Such conduct should not only be deprecated but also curbed with iron hands as otherwise the stream of justice is likely to be polluted by such stray incidents.”
Dismissal with Costs
Holding that the tenant’s explanation was an afterthought intended to evade legal responsibility, the Court dismissed the petition.
It directed the petitioner to pay a cost of ₹10,000 to the Punjab Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund, noting that courts cannot tolerate attempts to disown undertakings made before them.
The order concluded:
“In that view of the matter we are inclined to dismiss this petition with cost of ₹10,000/- payable to the Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund (Government of Punjab).”
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Sanctity of Court Records
The ruling reinforces the long-standing principle that court records are final and cannot be disputed casually. A party cannot claim that their lawyer acted without authority when the record explicitly shows otherwise.
2. Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
This provision requires tenants to deposit admitted arrears of rent during eviction proceedings. Non-compliance often leads to striking off the tenant’s defence. The case illustrates how courts strictly enforce this requirement to protect landlords’ rights.
3. Responsibility of Litigants
The Court clarified that litigants cannot escape responsibility by blaming their lawyers. Once an undertaking is given in the presence of the party, they are bound by it.
4. Costs for Frivolous Petitions
By imposing costs and directing payment to a disaster relief fund, the Supreme Court sent a message that misuse of judicial process will invite financial consequences.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling carries wider implications for landlord-tenant disputes and judicial integrity:
- Curbing Dilatory Tactics: Tenants often delay eviction proceedings by raising technical objections. The judgment shows the Court’s determination to curb such practices.
- Accountability in Litigation: Parties cannot disown commitments made in court and then shift blame onto their advocates.
- Strengthening Judicial Authority: The decision underscores the idea that undermining court records is tantamount to undermining justice itself.
- Encouraging Compliance: Imposing costs ensures that litigants think twice before filing frivolous petitions.
Related Precedents
The judgment aligns with several earlier rulings emphasizing the binding nature of court records:
- State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) – The Supreme Court held that statements recorded in a court’s order cannot be contradicted by affidavits or contrary statements. Judicial records are conclusive evidence of proceedings.
- Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) – The Court held that litigants approaching courts must do so with clean hands, and suppression or distortion of facts must be curbed.
- M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1987) – Courts cannot permit parties to dispute their own recorded statements or undertakings.
Broader Implications for Tenancy Law
This case will have an impact on how eviction proceedings are conducted across India:
- Landlord Rights Strengthened: Landlords can rely on court undertakings without fear of tenants later retracting them.
- Deterrence Against False Claims: Tenants making excuses about their counsel’s authority will find it difficult to sustain such claims.
- Faster Eviction Proceedings: Courts striking down dilatory tactics will ensure quicker resolution of landlord-tenant disputes.
Case Details
- Case Title: Santosh Gosain v. M/s Beli Ram Sareen & Anr.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
- Date: September 8, 2025
- Order: Petition dismissed with cost of ₹10,000, payable to Punjab CM’s Flood Relief Fund
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Santosh Gosain v. M/s Beli Ram Sareen & Anr. is a *stern warning against litigants who attempt to abuse the judicial process. By rejecting the tenant’s attempt to shift blame onto his lawyer and by emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of judicial records, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to preserving the integrity of justice.
The ruling not only strengthens landlord rights in eviction proceedings but also sets a precedent for holding parties accountable for their actions in court. By directing costs to be paid to the Punjab Flood Relief Fund, the Court also turned punitive action into a constructive contribution for public good.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that justice cannot be compromised by dishonesty or tactical evasion—and that the courts will not hesitate to act firmly to protect the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
Also Read
Supreme Court Justice Recuses from PIL Seeking Probe into Viceroy’s Allegations Against Vedanta
Sharjeel Imam Moves Supreme Court Against Bail Denial in Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
