Balwant Singh vs Bhori Lal
1991 Latest Caselaw 722 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) Balwant Singh petitioner herein is a tenant under Shri Bhori Lal, respondent herein in respect of shop premises No. 77 of property.No.. 8551, Model Basti. Delhi since the year 1934. As per the petitioner, on 20th January, 1982, he was dispossessed from the suit premises in an illegal manner. Aggrieved by the dispossession and the manner in which he was dispossessed from the premises, the petitioner filed second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Ace, 1958 in this Court which was registered as Sao 77/82 That appeal has been decided by Bhandare, J- on 27th July, 1990 and the same was accepted. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 7th August, 1981, by taking aid of which the respondent landlord dispossessed the petitioner-tenant from the premises in depute, was set aside. While accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant. Sunanda Bhandare, J. observed as under: "A separate application (C.M. 2026/90) has been filed by the appellant praying for restoration of possession of the shop in question. The respondent on 27.4.1989 made a statement that be is in occupation of the said shop and bids son is running business from the said shop. He has made a categorical statement that he has not re-let the shop to any third party. In my view this is a fit case where the appellant must be restored the possession of the shop particularly because the respondent has obtain index parte orders against the appellant and dispossessed him on the strength of those ex-parte orders. I direct that the appellant-tenant be put back in possession of the shop in question within two mouths from today. The application (C.M. 2026/90) is allowed".

(2) Despite this order which was passed in the presence of the respondent represented by a counsel as well, he failed and neglected to put the petitioner in possession of the shop premises in terms, of the directions of this Court which necessitated the petitioner in moving various applications in this Court for getting the possession- Vide order of this Court dated 9th July, 1991, warrant of possession of the shop in dispute were ordered to be issued returnable for 9th August, 1991 with permission to bread open the lock/locks, which have been put on the shop. Police assistance was also ordered to be provided for execution of the warrants of possession.

(3) As per the report of the bailiff, the possession of only half portion of the shop could be delivered because a wall was found erected in the shop premises and the area of the shop was also 3 found to be reduced on sides by erection of fresh walls Possession of the positions of the shop, up to which the access could be had by the bailiff, was taken over and handed over to the petitioner and the warrant of possession issued by this Court remained unexecuted in part because of the presence of brick wall in between and erection of walls on the sides.

(4) On the basis of these facts, the . petitioner again moved this application (C.M. 1218/91) requesting that the fresh warrant of possession be issued for taking possession of the rest of the portion of the suit premises authorising the bailiff to break/demolish the walls and to place the petitioner in occupation of the shop premises as delineated in the site plan along with the authorisation of the police aid and breaking open the locks etc.

(5) Notice of this application was sent to the respondent/Bhori Lal who filed his reply He admitted that the petitioner was the tenant in the suit premises. He also admitted his dispossession from the suit premises on 20.1.1982. He also admitted about the acceptance of the appeal (SAO 72/82) by this Court vide judgment dated 27.7.1990 but stated that after getting the possession of the premises one Shri Subhash Chand Saini was inducted as tenant in the said premises on 28th January, 1982 i e. before filing of the second appeal (SAO 77/82) and he was put in possession of the same ever since then After the decision of the second apeal by this Court on 27th July, 199 , he requested Shri Subbash Chand Saini to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to him so that he, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, restores the possession to the previous tenant, Shri Balwant Singh but be point blank refused and on or about 209.1990, Shri Subhash Chand Saini filed a suit in the Court of a Sub-Judge for permanent injunction restraining him from dispossessing from the suit premisis. On 24th September, 1990, the Sub-Judge directed the parties to maintain status qua and in those circumstances, he could not hand over the possession of the suit premises. He has denied that the respondent failed and neglected to put back the petitioner in the shop premises in terms of directions of the Court, as alleged. Regarding the section of the walls, he has stated that as Subhash Chand Saini is in possession of the same, he has no knowledge for the same. The respondent has not raised any wall in the premises in question. He has always been ready and willing to comply with the directions passed by this Court and for compliance thereof.

(6) During the course of the arguments, my attention has been drawn by counsel for the petitioner towards various tacts showing that the respondent, Bhori Lal colluded with Subhash Chand Saini (plaintiff in Suit No. 605/90), who is alleged to be in possession of the part of the suit premises, in securing the order of status quo against the petitioner.

(7) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the most material facts were concealed from the Court while getting the said injunction order of status quo. The Court declined to grant any order of injunction ex parte and ordered the issue of notice to Bhori Lal. who made appearance on behalf of defendant No. 1. The status quo was ordered to be kept regarding the suit premises but the notice was intentionally kept back from the petitioner, who was the real interested party. The Civil suit in the name of Shri Subhash Chand Saini is in fact at the instance of Bhori Lal. In order to avoid the order passed by this Court directing the respondent, Bhori Lal for handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises to Shri Balwant Singh, Shri Bhori Lal, respondent managed to pet that Suit filed through Subhash Chand Saini, a third person. He was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within two months from the date of the order passed on 27th July, 1991 but he succeeded in dragging the same till today According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when all the true facts were brought to the notice of the Sub-Judge that injunction order was vacated and now there is no such stage order has prevented Bhori Lal from banding over of the possession of the entire suit premises to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, he has intentionally and with malafide intention, violated the orders of this Court dated 27th July, 1990 and he is guilty of gross Contempt of Court and is liable to be punished strictly besides banding over the possession of the entire suit premises by demolishing the walls so erected by him.

(8) The learned counsel for the respondent only argued that on account of the stay in the suit filed by Shri Subhash Chand Saini, be could not comply with the order of the Court and could not hand over the possession of the suit premises and, therefore, is not guilty of any contempt of court. It might be Subhash Chand Saini, who bad constructed these walls and be has nothing to do with it.

(9) From the facts on record, it is apparent that it is this respondent, Bhori Lal, who has intentionally not complied with the order of this Court dated 27th July, 1990. He was directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to Balwant Singh within two months but instead of complying with the orders of the Court, he got filed a suit from one Subhash Chand Saini on frivolous grounds. It is admitted principle of law that if a third party is inducted in the premises after illegally dispossessing the real tenant, that third party cannot have a better right than that of the original landlord, and that third party will have to go Along with the landlord. On 27th July 1980 when the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant was accepted and the respondent was directed to restore the possession of the suit premises to the petitioner, he should have handed over the possession of the premises to the tenant/petitioner herein but be introduced Subhash Chand Saini a stranger in the suit premises so that the order passed by this Court may become nullity. It is pertinent to mention that Bhori Lal, respondent herein on 27th April, 1989 made a statement in this Court that be is in occupation of the said shop and his son is running business from the said shop. He has made a categorical statement that be has not relent the shop to any third pa:ty. It shows that it is only after the passing of the order by this Court on 27.7.90 while allowing Sao 77/82 that he started taking this plea that he relent out the same to Subhash Chand Saini. The alleged induction of Subhash Chand Saini is fraudulent and collusive just to deprive the petitioner of his valuable lights of getting back the possession of the suit premises, of which he is the tenant since the year 1934. Not only that, the respondent locked the suit premises and put every type of obstacle and hinderance when the bailiff went to take the possession of the suit premises armed with the warrant of possession of this Court. He got erected the walls by reducing the area of the suit premises and annexing the part of the suit premises with the property in his possession, depriving the petitioner from taking the possession of the entire tenanted premises. From these facts on record. I find that he has intentionally disobeyed and disregarded the order of this Court passed on 27th July, 1990 in Sao 77/82 titled as Shri Balwant Singh v. Shri Bhori Lal and I, therefore, hold him guilty of the contempt of court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(11) The question which arise now is how much punishment should be awarded to the contemner? A close and careful interpretation of sub section (3) Sec 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act leaves no room for doubt that the legislature intended that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal circumstances. The statute, however, confers special power on the court to pass a sentence of imprisonment if it thinks that ends of justice so require. In this case the attitude and conduct of the contemner is such that be neither tendered apology nor offered to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises as per the order of the Court rather has come forward with false and frivolous pleas which he knows are false and frivolous. Contempt proceedings against a person who has failed to comply with the court's order serves a dual purpose : (1) Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct, and (2) Correction to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. The sentence to be imposed should effectuate both these purposes. It must be also clearly understood in this connection that to employ a subterfuge to avoid Compliance with an order of a court about which there could be no reasonable doubt map in certain circumstances ;aggravate the contettipt. Looking to the conduct of the contemner, in this particular case, I feel that the sentence of fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence Of imprisonment is necessary. 1. therefore, direct that Shri Bhori Lal, contemner be detained in a civil person for a period of 6 months.

(12) This C.C.P. stands disposed of accordingly.

(13) Vide my separate detailed order, the respondent have been held guilty for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act for intentionally disobeying and disregarding the order of the Court passed on 27th July. 1998 in Sao 77/82 threaten as Balwant Singh v. BhOri Lal & ors. He has not handed over the vacant possession of the entire tenanted premises rather created obstacles and hindrances by raising walls in between and on the sides. I, therefore, order that the fresh warrant's of possession with respect to the remaining portion of the suit premises be issued authorising the bailiff to break/demolish the walls and if any articles were found in those premises a proper inventory be prepared and goods be given on superdari, Warrants of possession be got executed by obtaining polite assistance in accordance with rules. A copy of this order be sent to the Sho Police Station, Dash Bhandu Gupla Road. in whose jurisdiction the properly is situted. Warrant's of possession returnable on 10th December, 1991.