Shri Sita Ram Khanna vs Surinder Kumar
1998 Latest Caselaw 768 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. This petition is for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondent for the alleged disobedience of undertaking alleged to have been given by him to the Court on 1.5.1997 and for the alleged attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by filing objections to the execution petition preferred by the petitioner

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(A) and 14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Later on only the ground under Section 14(1)(K) of the Act was pressed. The petition was allowed subject to proceedings to be taken under Section-14(11) of the Act, which says that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (K) of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14, if the tenant, within such time, as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.

3. It is alleged that during the proceedings initiated under Section 14(11) of the Act, it was stated on behalf of the Union of India that the breaches of misuser could not be condoned, nor regularized permanently. As such on 26.6.1979 an order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 12.2.1981. The respondent preferred second appeal (SAO.104/81) in this Court, which was also dismissed on 1.5.1997. In the said appeal, the respondent gave an undertaking that he will have the breaches regularized on permanent basis from Land £ Development Office and in case the Land & Development Office does not regularize and condone the breaches, the respondent shall stop the misuser forthwith. In any case misuser would be stopped within two months unless condoned by Land & Development Office and in case of default, the respondent would be liable to eviction forthwith. It is also alleged in the petition that the breaches were not regularized on permanent basis and the respondent failed to vacate the premises. Thus, the respondent has contravened the undertaking given by him. As the respondent failed to abide by his undertaking, the petitioner filed execution petition before the Additional Rent Controller in which notice was directed to be issued to the respondent, who on receipt filed objections. It is the petitioner's case that the very act of filing of objections by the respondent amounts to interference in the administration of justice. As the petitioner is entitled to seek respondent's eviction, the respondent with malafide intent is trying to block the petitioner's way by of raising objections.

4. In the above background the aforementioned petition was preferred. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent, to which the respondent filed reply stating that no undertaking was given by him, as alleged. As such there is no question of violating the alleged undertaking. The respondent's case is that as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.5.1997 time was granted to him to have, the breaches condoned temporarily. The Land and Development Office through cheque dated 21.5.1997 (which was got duly encashed by the Land and Development Office on 29.5.1997) realised misuse charges. Thus misuse charges were paid within the stipulated period as per the order of the Court dated ,1.5.1997. During the execution proceedings taken out by the petitioner, the officials of Land & Development Office were called by the Additional Rent Controller. Statement of an official of Land and Development Office was recorded, who stated that a notice regarding breaches was issued on 14.1.1998 and the breaches were condoned till 14.7.1998. However, breaches had not been permanently condoned. Respondent states that on dismissal of the respondent's appeal, it was the duty of the petitioner to have applied to the Land and Development Office for temporary regularisation of the breaches and to inform the respondent of the amount to be paid towards misuse charges. As the petitioner failed to discharge his duty, the respondent has continuously been approaching the Land and Development Office, who had already condoned breaches not only up to 14.7.1998 but also condoned the breaches up to 14.7.1999 by accepting the requisite amount through cheque dated 18.6.1998.

5. Considering the respective submissions made at the bar, we are of the view that notice deserves to be discharged in as much as in the order dated 1.5.1997 there was neither any undertaking, which can be said to have been given to deliver possession as is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, nor the act of the respondent in filing objections to the execution petition can be said to be amounting to interference in the administration of justice.

6. On 26.7.1979 while allowing the petitioner's application under Section 14(11) of the Act, learned Additional Rent Controller imposed certain conditions on the parties. Aggrieved against the said order, ah appeal was preferred before the Rent Control Tribunal by the respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed that on receipt of information of the Land and Development Office refusing to temporarily condone the breaches, the respondent will stop misuse and in default he will be liable for eviction. This order was challenged by the respondent hi the second appeal to this Court. The said appeal ultimately was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, contention of learned counsel for the respondent was noted that as the implementation of the order of Rent Control Tribunal had been stayed, in the intervening period neither misuse could be got condoned temporarily from Land and Development Office nor misuse could be stopped. Accordingly learned counsel for the respondent prayed that time be allowed to the respondent to get the breaches condoned temporarily from the Land and Development Office or to stop the misuse. Only in this background while dismissing the appeal, in the ultimate para of the judgment, learned v Single Judge ordered :-

"For the reasons stated above, I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. On request of the appellant two months time is hereby granted to the appellant to either get the breaches regulari/.ed from the L & D.O. and in case the L & D.O. does not regularize and condone the breaches, the appellant shall slop the misuse forthwith but in any case misuse would be stopped within two months unless condoned by the L & D.O. In case appellant commit default, he would be liable to eviction forthwith. Order accordingly."

7. A bare reading of the extracted portion of the order of learned Single Judge makes it clear that neither there is any undertaking given by the respondent to have the breaches regularized on permanent basis nor it was undertaken by ihe respondent that he would deliver possession to the petitioner. In case the respondent would fail to have the breaches regularized on permanent basis. The petitioner has mis-interpreted and misconstrued the order of the learned Single Judge. On the request of learned counsel for the respondent two months time was allowed to the respondent to either get the breaches regularized temporarily from the Land and Development Office or stop misusing the premises. In the event of the Land and Development Office not regularizing or condoning the breaches, the respondent was directed to stop the misuse forthwith. In other words, misuse was directed to be stopped within two months unless condoned by the Land and Development Office.

8. It has been brought on record that the petitioner, whose duly was to have the breaches condoned from the Land and Development Office did not do so. Accordingly, on the basis of the permission granted by learned Single Judge in the order dated 1.5.1997, the respondent approached the Land and Development Office to have the breaches condoned. The same were condoned subject to deposit of amount, which admittedly is stated to have been deposited by the respondent. There is also no question of the respondent interfering with the administration of justice by filing objections to the execution petition. This is a legal remedy of the respondent, which he has availed, pursuant to the show cause notice, stated to have been issued in the execution proceedings. The respondent is entitled to satisfy the executing Court that due to condensation of the breaches, he is not liable to be evicted. It is the legal right of the respondent to contest those proceedings on all available grounds.

9. The petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2000/-.

10. Notice discharged.