A court may grant equitable extension to vacate despite a tenant’s breached undertaking, subject to conditions.

During the rent control appeal, the tenants undertook to vacate and deliver possession by 31 July 2026 and to pay monthly rent of ₹19,000; the appellate authority recorded the compromise and disposed of the appeal on that basis

Before the deadline, the tenants applied for an extension until 30 September 2026, but the application was dismissed at the unnumbered stage as not maintainable on the ground that the authority had become functus officio

The tenants challenged that dismissal under Article 227, seeking further time; the landlord opposed the request and relied on the tenants’ undertaking and the need to use the premises for his business

Whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in dismissing as not maintainable the tenants’ application to extend the time fixed under the compromise for vacating the premises.

Whether, notwithstanding the tenants’ failure to comply with their undertaking, the High Court should grant further time to vacate in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

The revision was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It records the appellate authority’s view that, after disposing of the appeal on the basis of the compromise, it was functus officio; the High Court found no fault with dismissal of the extension application, but nevertheless granted limited relief having regard to equity and the circumstances.

The tenants had voluntarily agreed to vacate by 31 July 2026, and the appeal was disposed of on the strength of that undertaking. The High Court therefore found no basis to fault the appellate authority’s dismissal of their later application.

However, considering that the tenants sought limited additional time, while also recognising that the landlord had vacated his own accommodation and required the premises for his business, the Court granted a final extension subject to rent payment and a financial consequence for the tenants’ delay.

The tenants were directed to pay rent of ₹19,000 per month through that date and clear any arrears within two weeks of receiving the order.

A sum of ₹1,05,000 was to be forfeited from the rental advance/security deposit; upon timely delivery of vacant possession, the landlord was required to refund ₹3,00,000.