Judgment:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.
NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1776 o”
18. 2-2013 Abdullah, Represented by his G.P.A.Gulam Sajjad, Kotla Alijah, Jafrigalli, Hyderabad Mohd.
Abdul Raheem,Hussaini Kothi, Kotla Alijah,Hyderabad HEAD NOTE: Counsel for petitioner : Sri M.A.K.
Mukheed Counsel for respondent : -- ?CASES REFERRED:
1.
(1985) 4 SCC 24.2.
(2004) 1 SCC 360=AIR 200.S.C.
942 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 17-2-2012 in C.R.P.No.761/2012, whereby this Court, inter alia, directed the respondent-Contemnor to vacate the schedule premises within a period of four months, later extended till 31-7-2012 by order dated 29-6-2012 in CRPMP No.3490/2012 in the said revision petition.
The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing mulgi No.23-1-432/2, Hussaini Koti, Kotla Ali Jah, Hyderabad.
The contemnor is the tenant of the said premises.
The petitioner filed R.C.No.462/2007 in the Court of the learned I Additional Rent Controller-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the contemnor.
By a detailed order dated 30-7-2010, the learned I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has allowed the eviction petition and ordered eviction of the contemnor.
The said order was questioned in R.A.No.266/2010.
The learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by his Judgment dated 16-12-2011, dismissed the appeal granting two months' time to the contemnor to vacate the petition schedule premises.
Three days before the expiry of the time allowed by the lower appellate Court, the contemnor filed C.R.P.No.761/2012 against the above mentioned orders.
This Court heard the case at the admission stage whereat the petitioner has entered appearance for his client as the respondent in the revision petition.
When this Court expressed its view that having regard to the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below based on sound analysis of the facts and thorough reasoning, the revision petition had no merit, the learned counsel for the contemnor submitted that his client may be given reasonable time for vacation of the demised premises.
Considering the said request and keeping in view the fact that the contemnor had been carrying on business in the demised premises for a long time, he was permitted to remain in possession thereof for a period of four months, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Within two weeks from today, the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that he will vacate and handover the vacant possession of the subject premises to the respondent on the expiry of four months from today.
2.
Within one month from today, the petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of rent to the credit of the R.C.
before the trial court.
On such deposit, the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same.
3.
The petitioner shall continue to pay the rents in future till the subject premises is vacated; and 4.
In default of any of the above conditions, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed and the respondent shall be entitled to recover possession of the subject premises by executing the impugned orders.
On the verge of the expiry of the said four months' period granted by this Court, the contemnor has filed CRPMP No.3490/2012 for enlargement of time for a period of two months to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner.
In support of the said application, the contemnor filed his sworn affidavit wherein he has averred that as per the order of this Court, he has filed his undertaking affidavit in R.C.No.462/2007 before the learned I Additional Rent Controller within time and that he has also been depositing the monthly rentals regularly.
He has further averred that he is running a tin shop in the schedule premises and eking out his livelihood therefrom and that he is also sincerely trying for securing another premises to enable him to vacate the schedule premises and handover the same to the petitioner and that despite his best efforts, he could not secure an alternative premises.
The contemnor has further stated that for the said reasons he is filing the said application seeking enlargement of time granted by order dated 17-2-2012 passed in the C.R.P.
for a period of two months.
In paragraph-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the contemnor stated as under: "It is respectfully submitted that as per the orders of this Hon'ble Court the petitioner filed his undertaking affidavit in R.C.No.462/2007 on the file of I Addl.
Rent Controller court, Hyderabad within time and also he is depositing monthly rents regularly.
It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is running a tin shop in the petition schedule premises and eking out his livelihood and expect the same there is no other source of income.
It is respectfully submitted that after disposal of the above CRP the petitioner is sincerely trying for other premises to vacate the petition schedule premises and handover the same to the respondent herein.
But inspite of his best efforts the petitioner could not get the premises in the said locality." In paragraph-5, he has prayed as under: "It is therefore prayed in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the time for a period of 2 months to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in R.C.No.462/2007 on the file of I Addl.
Rent Controller-cum-XIII Jr.
Civil Judge, Hyderabad to the respondent in C.R.P.No.761/12 dt.17-2-2012 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." The said petition came up before this Court on 29-6-2012.
On that day, this Court has passed an order extending time till 31-7-2012, subject to the contemnor filing a fresh affidavit within one week before the learned I Additional Rent Controller unconditionally undertaking to vacate and handover possession of the demised premises on or before 31-7-2012.
The petitioner averred that except the condition relating to deposit of rents, the contemnor has violated all the other conditions stipulated in the order dated 17-2-2012.
On 9-11-2012, this Court has admitted the Contempt Case and issued notice in Form-I directing the presence of the Contemnor.
Responding to this Court's notice, the Contemnor appeared before the Court on 17-12-2012.
He has engaged Sri Aadesh Varma, as his Counsel.
When the case was taken up for hearing, Sri Aadesh Varma, the learned Counsel, submitted that in view of the unfair attitude of his client who has taken advantage of the order of this Court, but failed to file the undertakings before the learned Rent Controller for vacating the premises and also in not handing over vacant possession of the schedule premises, he is not willing to continue as his Counsel.
This Court has therefore adjourned the Contempt Case to enable the Contemnor to file his counter-affidavit.
On 31-12-2012, Sri V.
Venkata Mayur, Advocate, has appeared for the contemnor.
The case was adjourned to 21-1-2013 with the direction to the Registry to put up the file in C.R.P.No.761/2012.
On the said adjourned date, this Court has perused the affidavit dated 17-6-2012 in CRPMP No.3490/2012 in C.R.P.No.761/2012 filed by the Contemnor seeking extension of time for vacating the premises, and prima facie opined that the Contemnor has misled the Court into granting the order of extension by making a false averment that he has already filed an undertaking affidavit before the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, as directed in its order dated 17-2-2012 passed in the C.R.P.
At the request of the learned counsel for the Contemnor, the case was adjourned to 22-1-2013.
When the case came up on the said adjourned date, Sri V.
Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the Contemnor, has made a fervent request for an adjournment as a final opportunity to convince his client to handover possession of the property.
The case was accordingly adjourned to 28-1-2013, finally.
On the said adjourned date, the Contemnor was present, but his Counsel was absent.
At the hearing, the Contemnor has admitted his lapse, but was not prepared to handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner.
Hence, this Court has adjourned the case by recording that except pleading to show mercy, the Contemnor has not put forth any further submission.
On 4-2-2013, with a view to give the Contemnor another opportunity to purge the contempt, this Court has requested Sri A.
Prabhakar Rao, an Advocate of this Court present in the Court, to counsel the Contemnor and apprise him of his legal obligation to comply with the undertaking given by the latter and the consequences of non-compliance.
After talking to the Contemnor, Sri A.
Prabhakar Rao, submitted that the Contemnor requested for a week's time to report to the Court as to whether he is willing to handover possession.
The case was accordingly adjourned to 11-2-2013, on which date, the Contemnor, while stating that he is prepared to handover possession, however, submitted that he cannot do so in the immediate future and that he needs substantial time for handing over the possession of the schedule premises.
Having not been convinced with his bonafides, this Court has closed the hearing of the Contempt Case while informing the contemnor that appropriate order will be passed, taking a stringent view of his conduct.
The above uncontroverted facts would show that initially the Counsel for the Contemnor has requested on behalf of his client to grant reasonable time for vacating the schedule premises and handing over possession thereof.
Accordingly, four months' time was granted, subject to the conditions, which included the one relating to filing of the undertaking before the learned I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The Contemnor has however failed to file any undertaking, but made a false statement in his sworn affidavit dated 17-6-2012 filed in support of CRPMP No.3490/2012 in C.R.P.No.761/2012 that he has filed his undertaking affidavit in the Court of the learned I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as ordered by this Court.
However, in the said affidavit, the contemnor has requested for enlargement of the time granted by this Court by two months for vacating and handing over possession of the schedule premises.
In my considered opinion, the contemnor has gained undue advantage of this Court's order passed on his Counsel's undertaking that his client will file affidavit.
Further, he has made a false statement before this Court in his affidavit dated 17-6-2012 by claiming that he has, indeed, filed the undertaking-affidavit before the learned I Additional Rent Controller for vacating the premises.
Even though the Contemnor has avoided filing the undertaking earlier, the request for enlargement of time made in the affidavit filed by him on 17-6-2012 clearly amounts to his undertaking to vacate the premises if the time is enlarged by two months.
But for this affidavit, this Court would not have enlarged the time.
Admittedly, the Contemnor has breached this undertaking.
In my considered opinion, each one of the following acts of the Contemnor constitutes contempt of this Court : (a) Failing to file an affidavit despite his Counsel's oral undertaking given on his behalf at the time of disposal of the C.R.P.
(b) Making a false statement in his affidavit dated 17-6-2012 filed in support of CRPMP No.3490/2012 seeking enlargement of two months' time for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the schedule premises, that he has filed the undertaking-affidavit as directed by this Court in the order dated 17-2-2012 passed in the C.R.P.
(c) Failing to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner contrary to the undertaking contained in the affidavit dated 17- 6-2012, based on which this Court has extended the time for vacating the premises till 31-7-2012.
The Apex Court has treated violations of the undertakings given to the Courts as civil contempt.
In Balram Singh Vs.
Bhikam Chand Jain1, the Apex Court held that the Courts must take serious view of the conduct of the contemnors in committing breach of the undertaking in view of the growing tendency to trifle with the Court's orders based on undertakings with impunity.
It has also held that it would be a travesty of justice if the Courts were to allow such gross contempts to go unpunished, without an adequate sentence.
In that case, in a Contempt Case filed for punishing the contemnors therein for the Contempt of Court, their Counsel assured the Supreme Court that his clients would delete the caption or legend "Design invented by Shri Bhikam Chand Jain".
However, having deleted the said caption or legend, the contemnors have printed on the septic tank "Balaram Septic Tank".
When fresh contempt proceedings were initiated, the defence of the contemnors was that they have carried out the undertaking given to the Court by deleting the caption "Design invented by Shri Bhikam Chand Jain" and that printing of the words "Balaram Septic Tank" does not constitute violation of the undertaking.
While rejecting this defence, the Supreme Court held that the assurance given by the contemnors to the Court on 20-2-1984 necessarily implied that they would stop forthwith their objectionable activities in manufacturing and selling the patented septic tank to the prejudice of Balram Singh; that, but instead of mending their ways of conforming to the spirit of that order passed on the solemn undertaking given by their Counsel, the contemnors have been guilty of contumacious conduct and their act in publishing trade notices contradicting the trade notice of Balram Singh amounted to gross violation of the said undertaking.
The Supreme Court has taken this conduct of the contemnors seriously and held that there were no mitigating circumstances not to pass a sentence of imprisonment.
Accordingly, the contemnors were committed for contempt and each of them was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to a further period of one month's imprisonment.
In Bank of Baroda Vs.
Sadruddin Hasan Daya2, the Supreme Court convicted the contemnors for violating the undertaking given by them to the Court not to sell or create third party interest in respect of the schedule property till the decretal amounts were paid.
While dealing with the question of sentence, the Supreme Court held as under: "Coming to the question of sentence, we are conscious of the fact that the power to punish for contempt must always be exercised consciously, wisely and with circumspection.
At the same time, the Court should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a grossly contemptuous act of a party.
If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.
Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will gave way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society (See: In re Vinay Chandra Misra 1995(2) SCC 584).
The present petition was heard on 27.8.2003 when we enquired whether the respondents would be willing to deposit the amount.
Learned counsel for the respondents sought time and the case was adjourned to 23.9.2003 and then to 14.10.2003 and finally to 28.10.2003.
However, even on the said date, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the problems of the respondents in depositing the amount and so the matter was heard on merits.
The position remains that though under the consent decree passed by this Court on 28.7.1999, the respondents had to deposit the first instalment on or before 1.11.1999 and the last instalment by 1.8.2001, but they have not deposited or paid even a single penny.
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no occasion for showing any leniency in the matter of punishment." In the present case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the contemnor has abused the process of the Court by taking undue advantage of its benevolence shown, based on his Counsel's undertaking that the contemnor will vacate the schedule premises within a period of four months.
The contemnor has further abused the process of the Court by making a false statement that he has filed the undertaking before the learned I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as directed by this Court on 17-2-2012 and again benefited from the indulgence shown by this Court based on such false statement and also his further undertaking to vacate the premises if the time is enlarged by two more months.
At least, after the Contempt Case was filed and the same was adjourned on a number of occasions by this Court hoping that better sense would prevail upon the contemnor, he has failed to mend his ways and continued to show his adamant attitude.
The statement made by him before this Court at the hearing of the Contempt Case on 11-2-2013 that he is willing to vacate the premises, but he needs substantial time, is laced with further malafide intention to gain time and to avoid the contempt.
The contemnor is totally remorseless for his contumacious conduct.
Far from purging the contempt, he continued to show his defiance.
Vexed with the attitude of the contemnor, two Counsel have stopped appearing leaving him to his fate.
Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the contemnor has committed blatant contempt of this Court.
The contemnor has also failed to show any mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view while considering the aspect of imposition of sentence.
This Court, therefore, finds no option other than committing the contemnor for contempt and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for four months.
However, if the contemnor hands over the vacant possession of the schedule premises any time before the expiry of the period of sentence of imprisonment, he shall be released after his undergoing the sentence for a minimum period of two weeks, by commuting the subsequent period of sentence as having already been undergone.
Ordered accordingly.
________________________ Justice C.V.
Nagarjuna Reddy Date :
18. 2-2013