Mohd Afzal vs Common Wealth Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

P.L.N. Sarma, J.—This contempt case has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 1426 of 1987 on the file of IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner herein is also the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 240 of 1990.

For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant.

The petitioner is the landlord. This contempt case was filed for punishing the respondent herein (tenant) under the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court made in C.R.P. No. 240 of 1990 dated 19-3-1991.

Relevant facts are as follows: Petitioner-landlord filed O.S.No. 1426 of 1987 on the file of IVth Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. Pending the said suit, he filed I.A.No. 1077 of 1988 to direct the respondent-tenant to deposit entire arrears of rent and also to continue to deposit the rent every month. The said application was based on the ground that the tenant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month and that he continued in possession and enjoying the property without paying any amount whatsoever.

Learned trial Judge dismissed the said application on several grounds. Questioning the said order, Civil Revision Petition No. 240 of 1990 was filed. The said revision was allowed by me after hearing both the counsel on 19-3-1991 directing the respondent-tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from 1-1-1990 till 28-2-1991. Further, I directed the respondenttenant to deposit Rs. 1,40,000/- within a period of three months from the date of the said order and also directed the respondent to continue to pay the rent every month at the same rate of Rs. 10,000/- with effect from l-3-''91 and the rent of March, 1991 to be paid on or before 10-4-1991 and in like manner the rent for each of the succeeding months pending disposal of the suit.

Alleging that the respondent-tenant has not complied with the order of this Court, this contempt case has been filed.

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that the respondent-tenant has not paid even a single pie as directed by this Court and therefore, there is wilful disobedience of the order of this Court which entails the respondent herein punishable under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

Sri Muralinarayana Bung, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that non-compliance of the directions given by this Court to deposit the rent ipso facto amounts to wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and also amounts to bringing down the dignity of the Court and interfering with the due process of law and therefore, the respondenttenant is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. He further contended that the respondent-tenant is neither paying the rent as per the orders of this Court nor vacating the premises and thereby causing great injustice to the petitioner-landlord.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not placed any judgment before me in support of his contention mat the directions given by me to deposit the rent, if violated, amounts to contempt of Court making the respondenttenant liable for punishment.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contemnor placed before me a judgment of a Division Bench in Abdul Razack Sahib Vs. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum and Others, and contended that non-compliance with such an order will not amount to Contempt of Court. The facts in the said case are - that the landlord took proceedings under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act against the tenant. The said proceedings were dismissed. The legal representatives of the landlord preferred C.R.P.No. 708 of 1965 to the High Court against the order of the Revenue Court. Pending revision in the High Court, the legal representatives of the landlord (petitioners in the revision) moved an application in C.M.P.No. 5345 of 1965 for a direction to the respondent-tenant therein to deposit into Court the arrears of rent to the credit of the eviction proceedings T.P.No. 2 of 1964 on the file the Court of Ex-officio First Class Magistrate, Tirupattur. The Court passed an order on 28-1-1966 in the said C.M.P. No. 5345 of 1965 directing the respondent-tenant therein to deposit the arrears of rent at Rs. 226-37 due up-to-date in the Rent Court within two months from the date of the said order and continue to deposit future rent at the same rate as and when it falls due. Thereafter, it came to light that the respondent-tenant did not comply with the order of the High Court passed in C.M.P.No. 5345 of 1965 pending revision. Insofar as other aspects are concerned, it is not necessary to refer to the same for the purpose of this contempt case. The revision petitioners then filed C.M.P.No. 4302 of 1967 for committing the tenant for Contempt of Court for disobeying the order of the said Court directing him to deposit the rent dated 28-1-1966 in C.M.P.No. 5345 of 1965. On the said application, on 13-11-1967'', the learned single Judge stated as follows:

"On the facts stated above, it is clear that the respondent has not deposited the amount as directed. He also admitted his liability and prayed for extension of time for depositing the amount. Till now, it does not appear that the respondent has deposited any amount as directed by this Court. The respondent is therefore, guilty of Contempt of Court."

Thereafter, the respondent therein was sentenced to two weeks simple imprisonment. Questioning the said order, L.P.A.No. 70 of 1967 was filed before the Division Bench. The learned Judges dealing with the said L.P.A. stated as follows:

"Non-compliance by the appellant with the order of this Court directing him to deposit the arrears of rent due to the petitioners within the time prescribed and continue to deposit the future rent, does not amount to any Contempt of Court."

Learned Judges clearly held that the penal action under the contempt procedure should not be invoked for default of compliance with such an order.

This Judgment of the Divison Bench fully supports and contention raised on behalf of the respondent-tenant in the present case i.e., that failure to comply with the order of this Court directing the respondent-tenant herein to deposit the arrears of rent etc., will not amount to Contempt of Court.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant also cited a decision in Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin and Another, in support of his contention. In the said case, alleging that the appellant therein violated the undertaking given to the Court to handover possession to the receiver, proceedings were taken under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. It is stated that violation of the undertaking to handover possession to the Receiver, given to the Court, will attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Learned Judges, while dealing with the said contention, stated as follows:

"With due respects, we are unable to agree with this view taken by the High Court. A few examples would show how unsustainable in law the view taken by the High Court is. Take the instance of a suit where the defendant agrees that a decree for Rs. 10,000/- may be passed against him and the Court accordingly passes the decree. The defendant does not pay the decree. Can it be said in these circumstances that merely because the defendant has failed to pay the decretal amount he is guilty of contempt of Court? the answer must necessarily be in the negative."

In the present case,j pending suit for eviction, an application was filed by the petitioner-landlord to direct act the respondent-tenant to deposit the rent. The same was dismissed by the trial Court and on revision, this Court directed the respondent-tenant to deposit the rent as indicated in the order in the revision. Suit is still pending. Failure to deposit the amount as per the orders of this Court will not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and the respondenttenant cannot be said to have committed any contempt. However, the order of this Court cannot be treated as a scrap of paper and it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has no remedy whatsoever. Petitioner-landlord is entitled to execute the order of this Court passed in C.R.P. No. 240 of 1990 and if such an application for execution of the order in revision is filed, the lower Court will be bound to execute the same treating the order in revision as a decree. It is open to the petitioner to execute the said order as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Contempt proceedings cannot be used as a lever for obtaining speedy and immediate relief prayed for in the suit even before the suit is decided one way or the other without resorting to the usual normal procedure prescribed. Contempt proceedings should not be used as a ''legal thumbscrew'' by a party against his opponent for enforcement of his claim as held in A. Ramalingam Vs. V.V. Mahalinga Nadar,

It is also well settled that mere disobedience of an order will not amount to Contempt of Court. Breach or disobedience must be wilful and contumacious signifying clearly disrespect to the Court. It is also well settled that jurisdiction to punish for contempt should be exercised with great care and caution and only in exceptional cases.

In the present case, I am of the view that even assuming that mere is disobedience of the orders of this Court, it is not a contumacious signifying clearly disrespect to the Court. ''

Having regard to the above, I am of the opinion that mere is no substance in this application filed for punishing the respondent-tenant under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for non-deposit of the amount as directed by me in C.R.P.No. 240 of 1990.

Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. However, as stated above, it is open to the petitioner-landlord to execute the order in C.R.P.No. 240 of 1990 dated 19-3-1991 treating it as a decree.