Ram Lubhai And Ors. vs Manjit Singh And Anr.
1967 Latest Caselaw 64 Del

JUDGMENT

H. Hardy, J.

(1) On 14th March, 1967, when this application under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, and Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the petitioners Shrimati Ram Lubhai and toher against Shri Manjit Singh and antoher had come up before me, I' had directed that ntoices be issued to the respodndents for 21st March, 1967 to show cause why the petition should nto be admitted. Ntoices having been served on the respondents, they filed reply to the same and the matter has been argued before me by the learned- Counsels appearing for the parties.

(2) According to the allegations in the application the petitioner No. 1 Shrimati Ram Lubhai is owner of a house in Subhadra Colony, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, and the respondents Manjit Singh and Sardul Singh are tenants of the property. The petitioner filed two separate applications against the respondents for their ejectment under section 14 of the Delhi Kent Control Act, 1958, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal requirement.

(3) It is stated in the application that the ejectment applications are still pending in the Court of ihe Additional Rent Controller Delhi.

(4) The defense taken by respondent No. 1 in the ejectment application filed against him is that he had already paid rent up to 16th July,. 1964 and had obtained a receipt issued to him by petitioner No. 2 who is a brtoher of petitioner No. 1 and countersigned by petitioner No. 3 who is a son of petitioner No. 1.

(5) Respondent No. 2 has also set up the defense of having paid rent up to 5th June, 1964 and being in possession of a receipt likewise signed, by petitioner No. 2 and countersigned by petitioner No. 3. The authority of petitioner No. 2 to receive rent on behalf of petitioner No. 1 having been denied by petitioner No. 1. The Additional Rent Controller passed an order on 1st April, 1966 directing the respondents to deposit rent under section to (1) and (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act with effect from 16th July 1964 and 6th June 1966 respectively. While evidence on the question of arears of rent was still being recorded by the Additional Rent Controller, the respondents filed a complaint in the Court of Shri R. K. Ahuja Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, against the petitioners for offences under section 420/34, Indian Penal Code wherein they used the statements made by the petitioners before the Additional Rent Controller as a ground for charging them with the said offences.

(6) It is further stated that the aforesaid complaint case is awaiting disposal by the Court of a 1st Class Magistrate in Delhi and cognizance of the offences has already been taken by the learned Magistrate in as much as petitioners 2 and 3 have already received summons from the said Court and they have furnished bail-bonds for their future appearance in that Court.

(7) The petitioners further allege that they are being threatened by the respondents with being convicted of the offences alleged against them and that the only way in which they can save themselves is that petitioner No. 1 should withdraw her applications for ejectment against them.

(8) The gravemen of the complaint made by the petitioners is that the sole intention of the respondents, in moving the criminal court during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, before the Additional Rent Controller, is to coerce the petitioners to forego and give up the ejectment proceedings against them. On these allegations, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have committed contempt of the Court of the Additional Rent Controller for which action should be taken against them by this Court.

(9) On behalf of the respondents Sbri Tirlok Singh Kwatra has, besides raising certain preliminary objections, contended that the respondents have moved the criminal court for vindication of their legal rights in good faith and as such there is no question, of their having committed any contempt. He has also contended that the Additional Rent Controller is nto a Court within the meaning of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.

(10) I am of the view that the application filed by the petitioners is wholly misconceived There is no rule of law which prevents a litigant in Civil Suit from approaching a cirminal Court if in his view the party opposing him in a civil proceeding has committed an offence for which criminal proceedings can lie. What the respondents in this case have done is that they have moved the Court of a Magistrate in Delhi on the allegation that the petitioners 2 & 3 have by dishonestly misrepresenting to them that they had authority to receive rent from them on behalf of petitioner No. 1 cheated them of a certain sum of money. If on these allegations the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, the respondents are perfectly entitled in law to proceed with the said complaint and their action can, under no circumstances be,characterised as amounting to an attempt to coerce,the petitioners into withdrawing the ejectment application filed by petitioner No. 1 against them. Each Court has a right to continue the proceedings pending before it and merely because the some question is likely to come up for decision before the Additional Rent Controller cannto bar the Jurisdication of the Magistrate to proceed with the case pending before him.

(11) Inview of the fact that lam nto satisfied that the respondents have committed any act which any amount to contempt of court for which proceedings may be initiated against them under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1958. I do nto consider it necessary to decide the second contention urged by Shri Kwatra as to whether the Additional Kent Controller is a Court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of section 3 of the said Act. The application is accordingly dismissed.