1
Dr.GRR, J
cc_106_2020
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CONTEMPT CASE No.106 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Petition is filed under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein who is the appellant in the Second Appeal for deliberately and willfully flouting the orders of this Court in S.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Sri B.Siva Sankara Rao.
2. The respondent herein filed S.A.No.1 of 2019 against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 in A.S.No.124 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.462 of 2013 passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
3. This Court while dismissing the Second Appeal at the stage of admission directed the respondent herein, who is the appellant - tenant in S.A.No.1 of 2019 to vacate the premises within 10 months time from the date of passing of the judgment on 25.01.2019 i.e. by 30.11.2019 after recording an oral undertaking of the counsel who requested for such time to secure alternative accommodation and to deposit use and occupation charges of Rs.10,000/- from 01.01.2019 onwards in the bank account of the landlord till vacating the 2 Dr.GRR, J cc_106_2020 premises by 5th of every succeeding month and to give an undertaking not to allow any third party into the premises and to vacate in the meantime, otherwise liable for contempt. It was also made clear that the appellant - tenant should not alter the premises and should not allow any third party and must vacate the premises on or before the time granted and if failed to comply any of the conditions, the appellant - tenant was liable for action to be initiated under contempt of the court, without prejudice to the right of the respondent - tenant after efflux of time fixed. The security deposit, if any, was directed to be adjusted at the time of vacating the premises.
4. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that the petitioner (landlord) issued a notice to the respondent on 18.11.2019 reminding the respondent for compliance of the orders of the court to vacate the premises by 30.11.2019 and the same was duly served, but the respondent gave a reply notice as if the petitioner orally agreed to sell her property to the respondent, which was an utter lie and false. When the petitioner was fighting for her property from 2013 onwards, the question of agreeing to sell the property to the respondent would not arise. In continuation of the evil intention of the respondent, the respondent further filed a false and fictitious suit vide O.S.No.448 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement. The petitioner was once again dragged by the respondent to a further fictitious litigation. The period of 3 Dr.GRR, J cc_106_2020 10 months granted by the court lapsed on 30.11.2019 itself, but till date the respondent had not vacated the premises. Further, in order to harass the petitioner, who was an old aged lady of 76 years of age, the respondent filed fictitious suit on an alleged oral agreement. The act on the part of the respondent would amount to contempt of the court order dated 25.01.2019. The respondent was bent upon to harass the petitioner in all aspects and he had no respect towards the orders of the court and was continuing in the property of the petitioner inspite of the orders of the court and prayed the court to come to its rescue and to punish the respondent for not implementing the orders of the court passed in S.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019.
5. Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice was served on the respondent and he was represented by the learned counsel Sri Madiraju Srinivasa Rao.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent requested to post the matter after vacation. But, however considering that he did not choose to file his counter and was taking time only to prolong the matter without complying the orders of this Court contrary to the undertaking given by him through his counsel to vacate the premises within 10 months i.e. by 30.11.2019, but reported to be continuing in the premises deliberately flouting the orders of this Court passed in S.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019, wherein he was also warned that he was 4 Dr.GRR, J cc_106_2020 liable for action to be initiated under contempt of court if not vacated the premises by the said date, it is considered fit to allow the petition sentencing the respondent to simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- within four (04) weeks from today.
7. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed sentencing the respondent to simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- within four (04) weeks from today.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J 25th April, 2023 Nsk.