Delhi High Court
Smt. Surinder Kumari vs Ajay Srivastava on 22 August, 2005
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Petitioner let out premises No: C-2/F-2 Dilshad Garden New Delhi to the respondent for a period of 3 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/-. Tenancy was under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 pursuant to order dated 29.5.1990 passed by the Additional Rent Controller. Respondent defaulted in payment of rent. As per the petitioner, the respondent was in arrears of rent in sum of Rs. 8700/- when she served upon him a legal notice.
2. On 14.2.1992 petitioner sought execution of the decree since tenancy was under Section 21. The respondent set up various defenses. He claimed to have purchased the property. He relied upon an agreement to sell, general power of attorney and two receipts in sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- and Rs. 14,900/-. He also relied upon a conveyance executed by DDA converting the property into free-hold in his favor. Since all documents were forged, on petitioners complaint, FIR No: 122/94 under Section 420/468/471 IPC was registered against the respondent.
3. Objections filed by the respondent to the execution were dismissed on 8.12.95. He filed an appeal but withdrew the same. Revision petition against the order dated 8.12.95 filed by the respondent was dismissed on 22.12.95.
4. In the execution filed by the petitioner warrants for possession were issued. There was obstruction. Orders were passed for police assistance and to break open the lock. On 15.4.96 respondent moved an application before the learned Additional Rent Controller praying that warrants be recalled. He stated that in a suit for declaration filed by him, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mahajan had stayed the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller. Accordingly, learned ARC recalled the warrants. It transpired that respondent had stated a blatant lie as no such orders were passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mahajan.
5. On 10.5.1996 respondent made the following statement before the ARC:
"Possession of the suit property bearing No. C2/F2, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi has been handed over to the decree holder on 23rd April, 1996. I do not make any claim with regard to the possession or title of the property whatsoever. I make the sttement without any threat or coercion. I undertake to withdraw all cases/ proceedings instituted by me against the petitioner, in all courts of law. I further undertake not to create any charge, encumbrances or lien over the aforesaid suit property on the basis of any documents like conveyance deed, conversion deed from leasehold to freehold by DDA etc. I undertake pay the outstanding amount towards arrears of rent and water and electricity charges for the period from 1.6.90 to 23rd April, 96 within a period of two months from today. The aforesaid amount of arrears of rent and water and electricity charges is Rs. 1,06,000/- approximately."
6. Execution was consigned to the record. Order was passed by the ARC as under:
"In view of the statements of the parties and their counsels execution stands satisfied. File be sent to R.R. Parties are bound to honour their statements.
Announced in Open Court today."
7. Respondent did not pay the arrears of rent and hence petitioner has filed the present contempt petition.
8. Respondent could not be served. Bailable warrants could not be executed against him. The surprised this court as respondent has been provided police security. He claims to have purchased some property at Bombay in which as per him Dawood Abhrahim has an interest. With great difficulty warrants were executed. Reason given by the police for not executing the warrant is that respondent leaves his house without informing the personal security officer. Looking at the conduct of the respondent on 16.8.2005 I had passed the following order:-
"1. SHO, P.S. Dilshad Garden Along with SI Ajay Singh Negi are present in Court. They state that non-bailable warrants issued against respondent could not be served notwithstanding that he has been provided police protection, for the reason his PSO informed that the respondent had surreptitiously left his residence. It was informed that the respondent has left for his office.
2. Respondent has been provided police protection by the Ministry of Home Affairs as he claims to have purchased some properties in which he claims that Dawood Ibrahim has some interest. However, conduct of the respondent in evading the process of law and slipping out of his house without informing his PSO does not entitle the respondent to any protection.
3. Directions are accordingly issued to the police authorities to withdraw the police protection granted to the respondent. Directions are issued to the Ministry of Home Affairs UOI to withdraw the directions issued to Delhi Police to provide police protection to the respondent.
4. On merits, the matter has been heard. To come up for orders on 22.8.2005.
5. Respondent would remain present in Court on the said date."
9. Alleging non-payment of Rs. 1,06,000/-, petitioner prays that action be taken against the respondent for having committed contempt of court, firstly by making a false statement that Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mahajan had stayed the warrants of possession and secondly by not complying with the undertaking given to the ARC on 10.5.1996 in Ex.No:4/92."
10.In response, respondent admits that he wrongly stated to the ARC that Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mahajan had passed an order. He, however, states that his counsel gave him wrong information. Qua his statement dated 10.5.1996, respondent states that he paid the amount on 17.5.1996.
11. Technical defense taken is that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 limitation to initiate contempt proceedings was 1 year. It is accordingly stated that the petition is barred by limitation.
12. Technical defense is without substance. Present petition was filed on 5.5.1997. Respondents undertaking is dated 10.5.1996.
13.Wrong statement made by the respondent on 15.4.1996 that Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mahajan had granted a stay was followed by a consent order passed by the learned ARC on 10.5.1996. Petitioner has obviously waived her right to take action pursuant to the wrong statement.
14. Intentionally disobeying an order passed by a court is a civil contempt. So is a willful breach of an undertaking. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be referred to.
15. On 10.5.1996, respondent undertook to pay Rs. 1,06,000/- to the petitioner. Binding him to the statement recorded by the ARC, execution was disposed of.
16. No proof of payment has been filed. No receipt or a document was shown to me at the hearing held on 16.8.2005. Respondents plea that he has paid the sum is without substance. The defense is rejected.
17. I allow the respondent one opportunity to purge the civil contempt committed in not abiding with his undertaking dated 10.5.1996. I grant him 6 weeks to pay Rs. 1,06,000/- together with interest @ 15% P.A. with effect from 11.5.1996 till date of payment.
18. List on 18-10-2005. Respondent to remain present in court on said date.
