Aprstc and Others Vs. M. Srinivas - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
contempt of court - contempt jurisdiction - section 17 of contempt of courts act, 1971 - in writ petition filed by respondent court directed corporation to consider case of respondent for appointment in view of circular issued by corporation - subsequently corporation issued another circular confining compassionate appointment to children of deceased employees only denying appointment to respondent - contempt application filed by respondent - single judge directed corporation for appointment of respondent on compassionate grounds without any reference to subsequent circular - lpa filed by corporation - in contempt application court is inclined only to see whether case of respondent for appointment is considered or not - subsequent circular issued by corporation cannot be disturbed by respondent in contempt application. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will positively indicate the wilful nature of default committed in paying or tendering rent as prescribed. while deposit of rent in terms of provisions of act and the rules amounts to valid tender of rent to landlord, the failure to comply with rule 5 (3) requiring delivery of a copy of the challan for deposit of rent in office of controller or appellate authority, as the case may be, so as to enable controller or appellate authority to cause maintenance of proper accounts under sub-rule (5) and give notice of deposit to person amounts to wilful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord. thus, where a tenant obtains an order to deposit rent, same shall be deposited at least by the last day of the month following that for which rent is payable and rent challan shall be delivered in the office of controller within a reasonable time so that rent controller can take necessary action for service of notice of deposit under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the rules within seven days of such delivery. in the absence of compliance in so depositing rent and delivering challan in the office of controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default.ordera. gopal reddy, j.1. this lpa is directed against the order dated 12-10-1999 passed by the learned single judge in ccno.2038of 1998.2. the brief facts of the case are that earlier respondent herein filed a writ petition in wp no. 14735 of 1996 seeking adirection to the appellant-corporation to consider his case for appointment to the post of cleaner on the ground that his father had completed 25 years of service in the corporation and as per circular of the corporation dated 15-10-1987. the learned single judge disposed of the said writ petition directing the corporation to consider the case of the respondent herein for appointment to the post of cleaner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of that order, provided the respondent herein fulfils the criteria laid down in the above said circular. subsequently, the corporation issued another circular dated 27-2-1998 modifying the earlier circular dated 15-10-1987. as per circular dated 27-2-1998, the compassionate appointment was confined only to the children of the deceased employees, and the concession given in the earlier circular dated 15-10-1987 was withdrawn. as the case of the respondent was not considered as per the order of this court dated 23-7-1996, he filed a contempt case in cc no.2039 of 1998. in the contempt case, the corporation filed an additional counter stating that the name of the respondent herein is at serial no.31 in the list maintained by the corporation in respect of the applications received from in-service employees who have completed 25 years of service for appointment of their children in the corporation and the case of the respondent herein will be considered as and when the vacancies arise. the contempt case was disposed of by the learned single judge directing the corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, without reference to the circular dated 27-2-1998 or any other subsequent circular.3. the learned standing counsel for the corporation contends that if the respondent herein is aggrieved by the subsequent circular, the remedy is tochallenge the same in an appropriate proceedings and not by way of contempt proceedings. therefore, the learned single judge ought not to have passed the orders in contempt case, amounting to review of the earlier orders passed by him. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent denied the allegations made by the appellant-corporation and contended that the lpa is not maintainable against the order passed in a contempt case and submitted that once the writ petition was disposed of, to consider the case of the respondent as per circular dated 15-10-1997, subsequent circular is not applicable to the respondent and his case has to be considered according to that circular only and further submitted that the order passed by the learned single judge in contempt case is just and proper.4. it is time and again stated that in a contempt case, the court has to see whether the order passed by the court is violated by the respondents or not. but in a contempt case, the court cannot issue further directions, in continuation of the direction already given in the writ petition. to the same effect is the judgment of the apex court in vijay singh v. mittanlal hindoliay, : (1997)1scc258 . in view of the same, this lpa is allowed. if the respondent herein is aggrieved by the subsequent circular dated 27-2-1998, he is at liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate proceedings. all the contentions are kept open. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

A. Gopal Reddy, J.

1. This LPA is directed against the order dated 12-10-1999 passed by the learned single Judge in CCNo.2038of 1998.

2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier respondent herein filed a writ petition in WP No. 14735 of 1996 seeking adirection to the appellant-Corporation to consider his case for appointment to the post of cleaner on the ground that his father had completed 25 years of service in the Corporation and as per circular of the Corporation dated 15-10-1987. The learned single Judge disposed of the said writ petition directing the Corporation to consider the case of the respondent herein for appointment to the post of Cleaner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of that order, provided the respondent herein fulfils the criteria laid down in the above said circular. Subsequently, the Corporation issued another circular dated 27-2-1998 modifying the earlier circular dated 15-10-1987. As per circular dated 27-2-1998, the compassionate appointment was confined only to the children of the deceased employees, and the concession given in the earlier circular dated 15-10-1987 was withdrawn. As the case of the respondent was not considered as per the order of this Court dated 23-7-1996, he filed a contempt case in CC No.2039 of 1998. In the contempt case, the Corporation filed an additional counter stating that the name of the respondent herein is at serial No.31 in the list maintained by the Corporation in respect of the applications received from in-service employees who have completed 25 years of service for appointment of their children in the Corporation and the case of the respondent herein will be considered as and when the vacancies arise. The contempt case was disposed of by the learned single Judge directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, without reference to the circular dated 27-2-1998 or any other subsequent circular.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation contends that if the respondent herein is aggrieved by the subsequent circular, the remedy is tochallenge the same in an appropriate proceedings and not by way of contempt proceedings. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the orders in contempt case, amounting to review of the earlier orders passed by him. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent denied the allegations made by the appellant-Corporation and contended that the LPA is not maintainable against the order passed in a contempt case and submitted that once the writ petition was disposed of, to consider the case of the respondent as per circular dated 15-10-1997, subsequent circular is not applicable to the respondent and his case has to be considered according to that circular only and further submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge in contempt case is just and proper.

4. It is time and again stated that in a contempt case, the Court has to see whether the order passed by the Court is violated by the respondents or not. But in a contempt case, the Court cannot issue further directions, in continuation of the direction already given in the writ petition. To the same effect is the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Singh v. Mittanlal Hindoliay, : (1997)1SCC258 . In view of the same, this LPA is allowed. If the respondent herein is aggrieved by the subsequent circular dated 27-2-1998, he is at liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate proceedings. All the contentions are kept open. No costs.