Mr. Manjit Singh vs Mr. Alex C. Joseph

Manmohan Singh, J.—The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Brief facts are that the suit above-mentioned was filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of property No. 7, Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110003 (hereinafter referred to as the ''suit premises''). On 23 May, 2007 this Court passed an order disposing of the suit as no matter was left for adjudication, in view of the factum of the respondent''s undertaking dated 8 November, 2006 to vacate the suit premises on or before 31 December, 2007. The petitioner also agreed to give up the reliefs of mesne profits and damages if the respondent acted as per his undertaking. On the same date, the respondent paid Rs. 3,30,000/- in cash to the petitioner as occupation and use charges for April-May, 2007. For the arrears of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the petitioner agreed to accept Rs. 75,000/- as full and final settlement of all of the respondent''s dues. The respondent then stated that he would pay the amount of Rs. 75,000/- "alongwith use and occupation charges which are payable for the month of June, 2007." This undertaking of the respondent was also accepted by the petitioner. On these terms, the suit was decreed.

The petitioner filed the present petition on 19 January, 2008 on the ground that the respondent has not handed over vacant and peaceful possession as per his undertaking dated 8 November, 2006 and court order dated 23 May, 2007, thereby willfully disobeying and violating the same. The account of both parties as to the occurrence of events is dissimilar, to say the least. As per the petitioner, on 31 December, 2007 the keys of the suit premises were handed over to him at 10 P.M. with the knowledge that the respondent still had some of his belongings in the suit premises and would get the same emptied out through his representative/helper. The next day, the representative appeared, took the keys which the petitioner handed over in good faith, and refused to return the same till the petitioner handed over a signed no dues and no damages certificate. The petitioner could not do so as the respondent had yet to pay the due water and electricity bills agreed to be paid by him in the order as well as the undertaking. The petitioner sent letters dated 18 October, 2007, 15 November, 2007 and 17 December, 2007 reminding the respondent to pay the dues. A notice was also sent on 5 January, 2008 to the respondent''s advocate stating that the court''s order dated 23 May, 2007 should be complied with. Further, it has been alleged that willful damage has been caused to the suit premises, as the damage to the ceiling is on the face of it way beyond normal wear and tear.

In his reply, the respondent has stated that he vacated the suit premises on 31 December, 2007. However, to pay the due bills, use and occupation charges he required a copy of the bills. The respondent then did not hear from the petitioner for three months thereafter, and wrote a letter dated 5 April, 2008 asking for the electricity bill. On 10 May, 2008 the respondent received the petitioner''s letter dated 17 April, 2008 stating that contempt charges had been filed against him. The respondent is ready and willing to pay these charges.

In his rejoinder, the petitioner asserts that the correspondence between parties proves that no peaceful possession was given. The respondent''s assertion that one of the keys was handed over to his representative is wrong as it was the only key and would be returned only once the petitioner signed the no dues certificate. The petitioner has also brought attention to the meeting between the parties counsel at the Delhi High Court at 10:30 A.M. on 23 January, 2008 wherein the respondent''s counsel specifically stated that the keys of the suit premises would not be handed over unless and until the petitioner signed the no dues certificate.

I have gone through the rival contentions of both parties. On 12 August, 2009 this Court directed both parties to file affidavits as regards the amount due towards water and electricity charges within three weeks. The two parties have filed their affidavits.

In his affidavit, the respondent has stated that he was supposed to pay and asked the petitioner to send copies of the bills for the period of September 2007 to December 2007, which he never received. He then wrote a letter to the NDMC on 30 July, 2009 and received a reply on 26 August, 2009 wherein the NDMC asked for this Court''s order dated 23 May, 2007. The respondent has submitted that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 47, 189/- towards the electricity and water bills for the period of September 2007 to December 2007. This bill is as per Annexure E of the contempt petition, which is the official bill of NDMC payable till 27 December, 2007. (The actual amount after addition is Rs. 47, 389/-)

The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that with the rejoinder, he had annexed the official transcript of the NDMC Demand Collection Register for the period of April 2000 to September 2006, wherein it is clearly shown that the last usage payment for the suit premises was made on 26 August, 2006. Due to non-payment, surcharge has been levied on the total payment and the total sum payable by the respondent till 26 September, 2009 is Rs. 71, 186/-. However, in the affidavit the petitioner has stated that the total amount due from the respondent up to the date of vacation of premises, i.e. till 31 December, 2007 was Rs. 52,291.

As regards contempt, in Vijay Pandit v. GR Investment India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. CCP No. 132/2008 in CS (OS) No. 214/2002 decided on 6th April, 2009 by this Court, it was held as follows:

Exercise of power under Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is comparatively a rarity and has to be used sparingly and in the larger interest of society and for proper administration of justice. Mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a ''civil contempt'' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. The element of willingness and intention is an indispensable requirement to take action. If two interpretations are possible as to the action of the alleged contemnor and one of such interpretations raises doubts about the wilful nature of his conduct, contempt will not be made out.

In the case of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, it was held as under:

"The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice."( Per over ,Contempt of Court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial Tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is also not a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed enquiry, it must be left to the Court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it.

It is my opinion that in the present case, two interpretations are possible as to the action of the respondent and one of these interpretations clearly raises doubts as to any deliberation on the respondent''s part to act in contempt of this Court''s orders.

Considering that possession of the suit premises has already been handed over to the petitioner as recorded in this Court''s order dated 23 May, 2008 and that with the respondent''s willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 47, 189/-, there is a difference of about Rs. 4000/- in the amounts stated by both petitioner and respondent till 31 December, 2007, I find that a sum of Rs. 52,000/- be paid by the respondent to the petitioner in full and final settlement of all electricity/water bills. The said amount now shall be paid within four weeks from today. This Court is of the considered view that nothing more survives in the matter. No case of contempt is made out in view of the fact that there are two versions of the parties regarding the date of handing over the possession.

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is disposed of in view of the direction issued above.