Allahabad High Court
Saveel Hasan vs Smt. Vandana Rathaur on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
1. Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 83 of 2016
Applicant :- Saveel Hasan
Opposite Party :- Smt. Vandana Rathaur
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Bhole Ram,Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Kamal Kishor Mishra,R.L. Varma
with
2. Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 267 of 2016
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar
Opposite Party :- Smt. Vandana Rathaur
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kamal Kishor Mishra,R.L. Varma
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Pursuant to the order dated 12.10.2022, the opposite party Smt. Vandana Rathour is present in the Court today, who is identified by her counsel Sri Bhole Ram.
2. On 12.10.2022, following order was passed:
"Smt. Vandana Rathaur-opposite party no. 2 is present in the Court today who is identified by Shri B. Ram, learned counsel appearing for opposite party.
The applicant before this Court was a tenant of opposite party.
The writ petition filed by landlord/opposite party was allowed on 31st March, 2014 and the order of the Lower Appellate Court was modified to the extent that the tenant/applicant was to vacate the premises in question within three months. Further, the opposite party/landlord was to complete new constructions within a year and offer a new shop to the applicant within a month with an increase of 10% rent.
Pursuant to the judgment of Writ Court, the premises in question was handed over to the landlord/opposite party by the applicant/tenant, but after construction the shop was not handed over to the tenant as directed by the Writ Court which led to the filing of the present contempt application. The contempt notice was issued to the opposite party wherein the opposite party appeared before this Court.
On 19.5.2022, the opposite party was directed to handover possession of the shop to the applicant by 23rd May, 2022, and execute the necessary rent deed. On 30th May, 2022, time was sought by the landlord for executing the rent deed hence, the matter was fixed for 6th July, 2022. On the said date after some argument, counsel for both the parties after consulting their clients agreed that rent payable by the applicant/tenant to the opposite party was to be Rs. 3,500/- per month and the matter was posted on 27th July, 2022.
When the case was taken up on 27th July, 2022, the Court was informed that opposite party has sold the shop in dispute and has executed a sale deed in favour of her mother and thus, the shop cannot be let out to the applicant/tenant as agreed before this Court.
On 2nd August, 2022, charges were framed against opposite party. Pursuant to which reply was filed to the charges. In reply to the charges, opposite party has stated that she had taken a huge loan from her mother for marriage of her daughter due to which she was in dire need of money thus, she had executed sale deed in favour of her mother on 12th July, 2022. From the reading of the reply filed to the charges, this Court finds that opposite party has committed contempt of this Court and charge stand fully proved against opposite party.
In view of the said fact, as the charge has been proved against opposite party as she has committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 31st March, 2014 and 6th July, 2022, the opposite party is liable to be punished for her act.
Put up this matter on 1st November, 2022 for consideration of punishment.
On that date, the opposite party shall remain present."
3. As the charge framed against the opposite party has been proved, today the matter is listed for awarding punishment to her for disobeying the order of the writ Court,
4. Heard Sri B.Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party on the question of sentence.
5. According to learned counsel, as the sale deed has been executed by the opposite party in favour of her mother, the contemnor is not in a position to let out the shop to the applicant complying the order of the writ Court.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that despite the order of the writ Court and undertaking given by the contemnor before this Court on 30th May, 2022 and 6th July, 2022, the contemnor had executed sale deed in favour of her mother on 12th July, 2022, which shows that her conduct was deliberate defying the order of this Court despite undertaking given by her.
7. This Court finds that contemnor deserves to be punished under the statute. I therefore, sentence her for simple imprisonment of one month.
8. It is directed that the contemnor, who is present in the Court, be taken into custody and Registrar General is hereby directed to send her to the jail, where she will serve her civil imprisonment for a period of one month, which shall commence from today.
9. In view of the punishment so awarded, the contempt application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022
Kushal
