Anil Nag And Ors vs Dev Dutt Sharma

Under consent order dated 21.2.2017 in SBCWP No.1194/2017 titled Dev Dutt Sharma Versus Anil Nag & Another, the respondent was under an obligation to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 28.2.2019. As directed under the aforesaid order and pursuance thereto the respondent also filed the requisite undertaking before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter 'Tribunal') that he would vacate the tenanted premises on or before 28.2.2019. The tenanted premises however were not so vacated on 28.2.2019 but only after over a month therefrom subsequent to the petitioner moving an application for execution of the order of the Tribunal as sustained under the consent order dated 21.2.2017 passed in SBCWP No.1194/2017.

On notice issued on the contempt petition, reply thereto has been filed inter alia with an unconditional apology. An unconditional apology tendered in contempt petition is however not a panacea to circumvent an otherwise obvious contempt of the court's order. In the instant case, the unconditional apology appears to be only a ruse to escape the consequence contempt of the court's order dated 21.2.2017. The chronology of the facts on record indicates that despite the consent order dated 21.2.2017 in SBCWP No.1194/2017 and undertaking filed before the Tribunal pursuant thereto categorically stating that tenanted premises would be vacated on or before 28.2.2019 the respondent did not comply with the aforesaid order and instead initiated all manner of proceedings with palpably false assertions of fact inter alia that his counsel acted without his consent/ authorization in the passing of the consent order dated 21.2.2017. If that were so, why an application for recall of the consent order dated 21.2.2017 was not filed soon after, and why did the petitioner execute and file as directed in the consent order dated 21.2.2017 the undertaking before the Tribunal stating that he would vacate the tenanted premises by 28.2.2019.

Albeit the respondent is in aggravated contempt for not complying with the court's consent order dated 21.2.2017, his own undertaking pursuant thereto before the Tribunal and then setting up a palpably false case of his counsel not being authorized for passing of the consent order on 21.2.2017, taking into consideration that he is 88 years of age and the fact that the tenanted premises have now been vacated though belatedly beyond the period stated in the undertaking of the petitioner filed before the Tribunal pursuant to the court's order dated 21.2.2017, I would not be inclined to sentence him and pass an order for his imprisonment but would only visit him with a fine of Rs.100/-. The fine be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of Registrar (Admn.) Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur within a period of 30 days. The Registrar (Admn.) is directed to remit the said amount to the State Government under the head (0070) 0070-01- 102-01-00-High Court.

The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.