Surinderpal Singh vs Nachhatar Singh and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This order will dispose of C.A.C.P. Nos. 8 and 9 of 2010 as both the appeals arise from common order.

These appeals have been preferred u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against order of learned Single Judge holding the Appellants guilty for violation of order of Rent Controller dated 20.7.2007 directing eviction of the Appellants under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Appellant in C.A.C.P. No. 8 of 2010 has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months CACP No. 8 of 2010 and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- whereas the Appellant in C.A.C.P. No. 9 of 2010 has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one week. A direction has also been issued requiring the Appellants to surrender before the CJM, Ludhiana on or before 5.1.2011 to undergo the sentence imposed.

The Appellants were tenants of the Respondents. An order of eviction was passed against them which was upheld by this Court but the Appellants were given time upto 28.2.2010 to vacate the premises. SLP, Review Petition and Curative Petition, preferred by the Appellants, were dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Objections against executing applications were also dismissed. Still the Appellants failed to surrender the possession, which led to filing of the Contempt Petitions. The Contempt Petitions were contested on the ground that a suit had been filed by one Mal Singh in the Civil Court in which injunction against alienation has been sought. Learned Single Judge held that the Appellants willfully defied the order of the Rent Controller. Inspite of statement that the Appellants will vacate the premises, the Appellants went back from the said statement.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that after the impugned order of learned Single Judge, the Appellants have vacated the premises and delivered the keys to the landlord. Learned Counsel for the landlord, who is present in Court, does not dispute this statement.

As regards willful violation of order of the Rent Controller, as affirmed by this Court and upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, learned Counsel for the Appellants is unable to show any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. His submission is on question of sentence in view of subsequent developments.

We, therefore, affirm the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. However, in view of the fact that the Appellants have vacated the premises, we set aside the sentence of imprisonment but confirm the sentence of fine.

The appeals are disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.