The Supreme Court upheld ruling from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on June 8, 2026,determining that a property owner in Gujarat cannot be held liable for environmental violations committed by a tenant. This decision came after the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) appealed against the NGT's November 2025 order,which had overturned the Board's directive to close the property and impose a ₹25 lakh environmental damage compensation .
In its appeal, the GPCB argued that the commercial premises in Surat housed an unauthorized dye-manufacturing unit that released pollutants into a nearby water body beyond permissible limits. The Board contended that the landlord, Jagmohan Lachiram Jalan, should not be completely shielded from the repercussions of these violations. However,the NGT found that owner could not be held responsible solely due to ownership of property.
Jalan had leased the plot to Suryaprakash Silaram Somani in September 2020, with lease agreement explicitly prohibiting illegal activities. He claimed ignorance of the tenant's failure to secure necessary statutory clearances from the GPCB. The landlord stated that he only learned of the GPCB's October 16, 2021, order, which imposed the interim compensation,after the electricity supply to premises was cut off in March 2022 due to Somani's non-payment .
Following the disconnection,Jalan filed a first information report (FIR) against Somani and his associates, alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code. He also challenged the GPCB's decision to seal his property. Despite his efforts,the GPCB rejected his representation on December 6, 2024,and ordered the closure of the unit .
The NGT's ruling emphasized that liability for environmental infractions could not be assigned to the property owner simply because he owned the premises. tribunal stated, “We are of the considered opinion that the impugned order,which imposes the amount of interim environmental damage compensation to the tune of ₹25 lakh,cannot be allowed to be levied from the appellant,who is the owner of the premises in question and not the actual occupier thereof.”
With the apex court finding no grounds to challenge the tribunal's decision,it dismissed GPCB's appeal. This ruling reinforces principle that property ownership does not automatically entail responsibility for a tenant's illegal activities,particularly when the owner is unaware of such violations .
