Shri R.S. Awasthy, Rent Controlling Authority Raipur vs Shri Gurudatt Chandani

S.K. Chawla, J.

These proceedings for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have been initiated on a reference made by Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur.

It appears that Gurudatt Chandani, said to be the contemner, had on 12-9-1988 made an application u/s 38(2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 to the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur complaining of withholding of essential supply by his land-lord. The application was that hand-pump in the tenanted premises used to almost go dry in summer season, that the tenant was ready to take tap connection from the corporation on his own expense and that land-lord had agreed to sign an application for the purpose but had subsequently. refused to do so. It was prayed in the application that the land-lord might be directed, to sign the application or the Commissioner of Municipal. Corporation, Raipur might be directed to give tap connection the applicant for the premises. The land-lord at first raised preliminary objection to the tenability of the application. The Rent Controlling Authority however negatived that objection and further proceedings in the case were taking place. During the pendency of those proceedings Gurudatt Chandani on 18-4-90 made an application before the Rent Controlling Authority. That application is said to have constituted contempt of Court and on that account the Rent Controlling Authrority has made the present reference.

The application dated 18-4-1990 after stating that the Rent Controlling Authority was purposely delaying passing of an order on tenant''s application for interim relief, imputed to the Rent Controlling Authority that he was more interested in fulfilling the desires of land-lord/non-applicant. The application further stated that the tenant/applicant was convinced that the Rent Controlling Authority would not pass an order without taking a bribe and hence feeling helpless he had remitted a sum of Rs. 100/- to the Rent Controlling Authority by money-order by way of bribe. An assurance was given in the application that the applicant would pay further bribe on demand being made and that he would not haggle over the amount of the bribe. It was also stated that the applicant was feeling great pain in committing the sin of giving bribe but he was feeling helpless because his children were dying thirsty without water. It was also stated that, the applicant presumed that he had received presumptive permission from the Rent Controlling Authority to give bribe to him. It may be proper to set out the relevant parts of the application.

The applicant endorsed copies of the above mentioned application to Hon''ble the Chief Minister and District Magistrate, Raipur. The manner and kind of endorsement made by the applicant may be profitably set out below:

In reply to show cause against these proceedings, the contemner has filed a long rembling reply covering 19 pages and annexing thereto as many as 26 annexures. The long and short of the reply is that the contemner had made several complaints against the concerned Rent Controlling Authority Shri R. S. Awasthy, because Shri Awasthy as well as contemner''s landlord are both corrupt persons. The contemner also boasted of his character as a clean and chaste Divisional Accountant in Irrigation Department in which corruption is life. While his colleagues are leading a luxurious life and have amassed immense wealth, the contemner is Irving in a rented house even after serving for 36 years. It is further stated that when the Rent Controlling Authority adjourned the case on several dates to decide the question about tenability of the contemner''s main application u/s 38(2) of the Accommodation Control Act, the contemner had to make a complaint (Annexnre-1A) against the said Rent Controlling Authority to Hon. Chief Minister, Commissioner, Raipur and District & Sessions Judge, Raipur. it was only thereafter that the Rent Controlling Authority passed an order holding that the contemner''s application u/s 38(2) was tenable. Even on 22-1-1990 the contemner had made an application (Annexure-2) to the Pent Controlling Authority containing an offer of bribe but the Rent Controlling Authority did not express any kind of reaction. This showed weakness on the part of the Rent Controlling Authority; otherwise he could have taken action against the contemner for haying offered bribe. It would thus appear from the reply that the application complained against, said to be constituting contempt of Court, was not a solitary application but one in the series of that kind of applications.

The contemner repeatedly spurned the suggestion made to him to get a counsel engaged, who could properly represent and argue his case before us. He argued his case in person. Seeing that a serious view might be taken against him, he took the hint and on 4-7-1991 filed an unconditional apology.

There can be no doubt that Rent Controlling Authority hearing matters under the provisions of M. P. Accomodation Control Act, 1961 is a Court. Section 29 of that Act gives to the Rent Controlling Authority the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in such matters as summoning and attendance of witnesses etc. That provision further enacts that proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and further the Rent Controlling Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now Sections 345 and 346 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). In our view, the Rent Controlling Authority exercises the same powers which, if this tribunal were not constituted, would have been exercisable by ordinary Courts of the land. The Rent Controlling Authority renders definitive and binding decisions. He has not only the trappings of a Court but has the same powers as are given to Ordinay Courts of the land by the Code of Civil Procedure. That, being so, Rent Controlling Authority is a Court, and for the purposes of contempt of Courts Act, is a Court subordinate to the High Court. We are fortified in our opinion by the decision of Delhi High Court in The State (Delhi) Vs. Dewan Ram Dass T. Chugani, wherein Rent Control Tribunal has been held to be a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act.

To charge that a Presiding Judge of a Court is corrupt and that too in an application openly made in that Court, is undoubtedly a gross and blatant kind of contempt of Court. In fact, nothing could be more obnoxious and mischievous contempt than to openly make such an allegation an application filed before the Court itself. In the case of National Textile Workers'' Union Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Others, the contemner had charged High Court Judges with corruption in the Press. The Supreme Court took a Very serious view of the matter and punished the condemner with 3 months'' imprisonment and further to a maximum fine of Rs. 2,000/-, when it may appear that the High Court could have itself punished its own contempt. The contemner Gurudatt Chandani in the case before us sought to justify the allegations of corruption against the Rent Controlling Authority in his long winding reply. That has only aggravated the contempt. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above said case of National Textile Workers'' Union made the following pertinent observations:

The fact that the contemner has made allegations of corruption against the four Judges is not denied by him and indeed he stated before us that he wanted an opportunity to extablish those allegations. If we were to grant him such an opportunity, that would have aggravated the contempt." The contemner Gurudatt Chandani, compounded the wrong committed by him by making repeated offers of bribe and infact by sending a part of the amount of alleged bribe by money order to the Rent Controlling Authority. We are not at present concerned with the question whether by making an offer of bribe, the contemner committed an offence u/s 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is sufficient to say that the contemner thereby added greater insult to the injury already committed by him He has explained that his intention in sending the money was only to provoke the Rent Controlling Anthority into taking speedier action in his case. That shows, if nothing else, the kind Of misguided person he is, observed with the idea of self-rights and running down others as full of evil. That is not to say that if a Presiding Judge of a Court is corrupt, complaint may not be made against him. Complaint may be made against him in a confidential manner to his disciplinary authority. That would save the maker of the complaint from action under the Contempt of Court Act by taking shield provided in Section 6 of the Act.

We are clearly of the view that the kind of contempt committed by the contemner in the present case must be strongly dealt with in order to preserve the dignity and decorum of the institution of Courts. We are further of the view that belated apology offered by the contemner in the circumstances of the case is most insufficient to purge him of contempt committed by him. Having regard however to the fact that the contemner appeared to be obsessed with the thought that extreme injustice had been done to him by the Rent Controlling Authority in the back ground of adjournments in the case, causing what the contemner thought to be extreme plight in which his children were going thirsty without drinking water and also the fact that the contemner is a government servant who might loss his job if sentenced to imprisonment, we think that a sentence of fine would fully serve the purpose. Accordingly, finding Gurudatt Chandani guilty of contempt of Court, we sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. He shall pay the fine within 2 months from the date of this order. In addition, he shall also pay paper book costs of Rs. 60.00 p.