Ashok Kumar and others vs Avtar Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—The petitioner, Ashok Kumar and his mother Shrimati Krishna Piari, are the owners of house No. 614/46, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana. The respondent Avtar Singh filed a civil suit on the basis of his title with respect to the said house which was dismissed by the trial Court on April 18, 1975. He preferred R.F.A. No. 321 of 1975 in this Court which was also dismissed on November 3, 1983. Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment, i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 298 of 1984, was also dismissed on May 22, 1984. Having lost up to the High Court, the respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioners before the Rent Controller claiming that after the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal, he entered into a compromise with the petitioners and that they admitted themselves to be his tenants. The ejectment was claimed on the basis of non-payment of arrears of rent. However, he was able to secure ex parte order of ejectment against the petitioners from the Rent Controller on February 12, 1985. Not only that in execution of the said order, the respondent was also successful in getting possession of three rooms on April 12, 1985, which were in possession of the petitioners whereas the remaining portion was in occupation of the tenants under the petitioners. The petitioners, in the first instance, moved the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex parte order. However, the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller against which the petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No. 60 of 1986, in this Court. At the time of the motion hearing, further execution of the ex parte ejectment order was stayed on January 10, 1986. The civil revision petition was finally allowed on July 22, 1987, and the ex parte ejectment order dated February 12, 1985, was set aside. In the order of the High Court, the respondent was also directed to restore within 15 days to the petitioners possession of part of the premises in dispute which he secured on April 12, 1985 in execution of the ex parte order of ejectment Meanwhile in spite of the said orders passed by this Court at the time of the motion hearing in the said civil revision petition on January 10, 1986, the respondent also got possession from the tenants of the remaining portion of the building as the petitioners were residing at Delhi. Not only that when the case was sent back by the High Court after setting aside the ex parte ejectment order for deciding the ejectment application on merits, the respondent on October 20, 1987, got his petition dismissed in default and, thus, continued in occupation of the house, in dispute. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed the contempt petition in this Court dated December 2, 1987.

On the last date when the contempt petition came up for hearing, the respondent, who was present in person, submitted that he was prepared to deliver possession of the three rooms which he had taken from the petitioners and as directed by this Court vide order dated July 22, 1987, and got time for the said purpose.

It is no more disputed now that the possession of the three rooms taken by the respondent from the petitioners had been delivered to them on May 23, 1988. When the petition came up for hearing, the respondent was present in person along with his counsel Shri O.P. Goyal, Advocate. He was again asked as to whether he was prepared to deliver possession of the remaining portion which he had taken after filing the ejectment application from the tenants under the petitioners. The learned counsel after consulting the respondent stated at the bar that his client was not prepared to deliver the possession of the remaining portion. According to him the High Court order dated July 22, 1987, only directed the delivery of possession of three rooms which were taken from the petitioners.

The matter did not end here. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent dated February 5, 1988 in para 4 thereof he even made certain accusations against the Hon''ble Judge of this Court who had decided the above said civil revision petition, prima facie, he has committed criminal contempt of Court for which a separate notice be issued to him as to why he should not be punished for committing criminal contempt of this Court Not only that even when he filed SLP against the order of this Court in the civil revision petition, he made certain allegations in paragraph 13 of the petition, copy, Annexure C, on this file.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent orally requested that the respondent be allowed to withdraw the said reply, winch was declined. According to the respondent, he was always ready to deliver the possession to the petitioners, but they never came forward to take possession; hence it could not be delivered earlier to them. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, no contempt was committed by not complying with the orders of this Court dated July 22, 1987.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that from the facts and circumstances of the case brought on the record, it is a clear case where the whole conduct of the respondent speaks for itself. Of course, during the pendency of this petition, he delivered back the possession of a portion of the premises, but at the same time, he did not deliver back the possession of the remaining portion which he had taken after filing the ejectment application which he had got ultimately dismissed in default, when the case was sent back by this Court for deciding the same on merits. After having failed in the civil suit up to the High Court and then failing in the ejectment application, he had no right, title or interest, to remain in occupation of the premises the possession of which was taken by obtaining an ex parte ejectment order dated February 12, 1985. "Civil contempt" as defined u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. In the order of this Court dated July 22, 1987, there was a specific direction that the respondent is also directed to restore within 15 days to the petitioners possession of part of the premises in dispute which he secured on 12-4-1985 in execution of the ex parte, order of ejectment. That being so, the plea that none of the petitioners came forward to take possession, could not be accepted. Not only that the petitioners filed an application for restitution which was contested by the respondent and he never delivered possession till this petition was filed in this Court, and that too at the fag end when the case was to be heard finally. This may be at the most a mitigating circumstance, but does not absolve the respondent from the civil contempt which he has already committed by not complying the orders of this Court within 15 days Not only this conduct of the respondent, his getting the ejectment application dismissed in default on October 20, 1987, when the case was remanded by this Court and the petitioners were allowed to enter upon their defence and to contest the ejectment application brought by the respondent, on merits, further shows his mala fide intention to remain in occupation of the portion which he got after filing the ejectment application, from the tenants under the petitioners. The respondent is not at all sorry for his conduct; rather he still maintains that he is entitled to continue in occupation of the remaining portion on the ground that no specific direction was given by this Court in the order dated July 22, 1987. As a matter of fact, the very plea that the petitioners entered into a compromise with him after the decision of the letters patent appeal and admitted themselves to be his tenants, was itself on the face of it, absurd and without any basis. In order to avoid any decision on merits, he found it convenient to get the ejectment application dismissed in default and to continue in occupation of the remaining portion of the house, in dispute after having failed in the civil suit as well as in the ejectment application filed by him. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is guilty of committing civil contempt of this Court in not complying with the order of this Court dated July 22, 1987, in the aforesaid civil revision petition, and because of his subsequent conduct before the Rent Controller when the case was remanded for trial on merits.

Consequently, the respondent is punished with simple imprisonment for a term of four months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This punishment has been awarded after taking into consideration the fact that he delivered the possession of the three rooms at the stage of the final arguments in the case.