Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 31-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Pradeep Kumar Sah Gangola & Ors.; Respondents: Rizwana Khan & Ors.
  • The dispute stems from a High Court of Uttarakhand Civil Revision (No. 119/2024) dated 19‑12‑2024, which ordered the petitioners, as tenants, to hand over possession of the premises to the landlord and pay mesne profits of Rs 4,000 per day from 1‑Dec‑2024.
  • On 24‑Jan‑2025 the Supreme Court observed that the lease expired on 31‑Dec‑2020 and the petitioners were obliged to vacate. The petitioners sought an extension up to 31‑Dec‑2025 and indicated a demand draft No. 271079 dated 30‑Jan‑2025 for Rs 10,00,000 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank in favour of “Sundari Sah Gangola”.
  • The Court directed the petitioners to deposit arrears, allowed them to withdraw any amount already deposited with the lower court, and granted an extension to vacate the premises by 31‑Dec‑2025. An undertaking to vacate was to be filed within 8 days.
  • From January 2025 to 31‑Dec‑2025 the petitioners were ordered to pay Rs 70,000 per month as lease rent. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of on these terms.
  • By the hearing on 30‑May‑2026 the petitioners had not yet handed over vacant possession. The Court warned of contempt if possession was not delivered.
  • On the subsequent hearing, the petitioners claimed that possession had been handed over except for a saloon, a gym, and a restaurant named “Milan”. The saloon and gym were later confirmed vacant; the restaurant “Milan” remained occupied.
  • The Court asked the petitioner's counsel to identify the persons occupying the saloon, gym, and restaurant, and to furnish details by the next hearing date (28‑05‑2026). The saloon and gym occupants later testified they were placed in possession by the alleged contemnor.

Final Outcome

  • The Court permits the petitioner to implead the proprietor/occupier of the restaurant “Milan” in the present proceedings.
  • The petitioner’s counsel must provide the name and details of the restaurant’s occupier; the Registry will issue a notice to that person, which must be returned on or before 07‑Aug‑2026.
  • The Court reiterates that it is the alleged contemnor’s responsibility to ensure the restaurant “Milan” vacates the premises; failure to do so will result in further contempt proceedings against all responsible parties.

Topics: Lease Dispute, Contempt Proceedings, Hospitality Occupancy