Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01..11..2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Contempt Petition No.1287 of 2022
D.Damodharan
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
D.Jagannathan
..... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
praying to punish the respondent for disobeying/violating the judgement and
decree dated 31.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.2481 of 2000 on the file of the
learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.G.Vigneshwar for
Ms.M.Saranya
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,]
Alleging that the judgement and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed in
O.S.No.2481 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai, is being disobeyed and violated, by the respondent/3rd
defendant, the plaintiff in the original suit has filed the present contempt
petition.
2. On 28.10.2022, we passed the following order:-
“On 19.10.2022, this Court passed the following order: “Alleging that the respondent has disobeyed and violated the judgement and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.2481 of 2000, the present contempt petition has been filed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid original suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this contempt petition will hereinafter be referred to by their respective names.
3. D.Damodharan is the brother of D.Jagannathan. The property in question is a shop measuring 330 square feet, situated in the ground floor at D.No.13, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Second Floor, Teyanampet, Chennai 600018. Damodharan filed a suit in O.S.No.2481 of 2000 in the City Civil Court, Chennai against his father and brothers
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
including Jagannathan. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit. The learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by a judgement and decree dated 31.07.2007, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The relevant portion of the decree reads as follows:- “1.that the defendants, their agents, representatives, men, workmen or anybody claiming right or authority through the defendants are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's right to possess, enjoy and collect rent in respect of suit property at Door No.13, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018;
2. that the defendants, their agents, representatives, men, workmen, or anybody claiming right or authority through the defendants are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from alienating and from causing encumbrance whatsoever over the suit property at Door No.13, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.”
4. Challenging the said judgment and decree, Jagannathan filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.339 of 2008 which was dismissed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal suit, Jagannathan preferred a further appeal in S.A.(SR) No.8903 of 2015 along with MP SR.No.36154 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 and this court on 25.09.2015 passed the following order:-
“The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
M.P.No.1 of 2015, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Consequently, SA (SR) No.8903 of 2015 and connected Miscellaneous Petition in MP SR No.36154 of 2015 are also dismissed.”
Thus, the judgment and decree of the trial court has become final.
5. While that being so, Jagannathan alleged to have forcibly entered into the shop premises on 14.10.2021, taken possession of the shop and has given it on rent to one Amudha Biriyani and Fast Food and collecting rent from them. With these allegations, the present contempt petition has been filed.
6. On notice, Jagannathan, the respondent herein entered appearance through Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel and filed counter affidavit dated 07.08.2022, wherein he has questioned the decree and judgement of the trial court by alleging that his brother Damodharan had not placed all the facts before the trial court.
7. It may be pertinent to extract para 7 of the affidavit of Damodharan filed in support of the present contempt petition which read as under:-
“I state that while the aforesaid decree remains valid and while the aforesaid E.P. To execute the decree is pending, on 10.02.2021, the respondent erected a political banner with the photo of the Chief Minister on the first floor balcony of the said premises. When
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
I objected for the same, he had threatened me. I gave a police complaint on 10.02.2021. However, there was no response from the police. On 14.10.2021 at about 11.00 a.m. the respondent, without any respect to the decree and the due process of law, have broken open the locks put up by me in the shop situated in the ground floor of the premises, entered the shop with the help of the men engaged by him and remained there. When my wife and I objected to and obstructed to the respondent's unlawful activities, he had assaulted my wife and me who are elderly and weak people and caused physical injury to us. I had given a police complaint on 14.10.2021 and on 18.10.2021 before E3, Teynampet Police Station. However, due to the respondent's influence in the DMK party and with the police, the police have not taken any action against the respondent for criminal trespass, hurt and assault. The police did not respect the decree and advised me to obtain a fresh order from the court. The respondent is now retaining the possession of the shop in the ground floor of the said property and preventing me from possessing, occupying and collecting rent from the said shop. As these acts are
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
violations and disobedience of the aforesaid decree and as the respondent is bound and liable to respect the decree and comply with the terms of the decree, I issued a notice dated 27.10.2021 calling upon the respondent to immediately vacate the shop premises at the aforesaid address and hand over possession of the same and to restrain himself from indulging in acts in disobedience of the decree passed in O.S.No.2481 of 2000. The respondent received the notice.
However, he did not care to obey the decree and comply with the demands made in the notice dated 27.10.2021.”
8. However, in the counter affidavit dated 07.08.2022 that has been filed by Jagannathan, there is absolutely no refutation of the allegations made in para 7 extracted above. Along with the typed set of papers, photographs have been filed in order to show that Amudha Biriyani and Fast Food is functioning in the said shop premises. In our considered opinion, this amounts to a brazen contempt of judgement and decree of the civil court and, therefore, Jagannathan cannot be shown any sympathy. 9. When this was pointed out by us, Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel fairly submitted that if 48 hours of time is given to Jagannathan, he will hand over the keys of the shop to his brother Damodharan and also instruct the tenant (owner of Amudha Biriyani and Fast Food shop) to pay the rent directly to Damodharan and report to this court. 10. We accept the submission of
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
Mr.C.Prasakam and adjourn the case to 28.10.2022 for filing affidavit of Jagannathan in Tamil language and hand over the keys in the open court. 11. Jagannathan, the respondent herein and Damodharan, the petitioner herein are directed to be present in this court on that date. List this matter on 28.10.2022.” ”
2. Today, the respondent is present with his wife and when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. G. Vigneshwar (MS No.1720 of 2014), Advocate, representing Ms. M. Saranya (MS No.3359 of 2013), Advocate, who came on change of vakalat for the respondent, submitted that the respondent also has got a share in the property and that he is entitled to receive rents.
3. We drew the attention of the learned counsel for the respondent to the decree dated 31.07.2007 passed in O.S. No.2481 of 2000 on the file of III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, which is the subject matter of the present contempt petition, wherein, it is clearly stated that there shall be an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including the respondent herein from, in any way, interfering with the plaintiff's (petitioner's) right to possess and enjoy the suit property and collect rent therefrom.
4. As a riposte, the learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, admitted that it is only the respondent who has let out the property on rent to Amudham Biriyani and Fast Food Shop and he is also collecting rent from the said shop.
5. This, in our considered opinion, is a brazen contempt of the Civil Court's decree dated 31.07.2007. Realising this, the learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, stated that the respondent is now ready and willing to direct the
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
owner of Amudha Biriyani and Fast Food Shop, to pay the rent directly to the petitioner and report to this Court.
We accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and adjourn the case to 01.11.2022 (Tuesday) for reporting compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 19.10.2022.”
3. Pursuant to our directions, D.Damodharan (3rd defendant in the suit),
D.Jagannathan (plaintiff in the suit), S.Jayapal Sundaram (tenant of the shop
in dispute) and his wife Valliammai Jayapal Sundaram are present.
4. Jagannathan has filed a sworn affidavit dated 01.11.2022, wherein
he has stated as follows:-
jpU/b$fd;ehjd; mth;fspd;
gpukhz thf;FK:yk;
brd;id ? 600 018. jpUts;Sth;
rhiy. vz;/13. ,uz;lhk; jsj;jpy; trpj;J tUk; jpU/njtuh$; mth;fspd; kfd; 52 taJila b$fd;ehjd; Mfpa ehd; fPH;fz;lthW cWjp mspf;fpnwd;/ ehd; nkw;fz;l tHf;fpy; vjph; kDjhuh; Mntd;/ nkw;fz;l tHf;fpd; KG tptu';fs; vdf;F bjhpa[k;/ brd;id cupikapay; 3tJ cjtp ePjpkd;wk; O.S. No.2481/2000 vd;w tHf;fpy; gpwg;gpj;j jPhg ; g ; pw;F cl;gl;Lk;
nkw;go Contempt Petition No.1287/2022
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
vd;w tHf;fpy; ,e;j khz;g[kpF ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Kd; ehd;
xg;gf[ ;bfhz;ljw;F cl;gl;Lk; brd;id ?
18. jpUts;Sth; rhiy. fjtpyf;fk; 13.
g[jpa vz;/41?y; jiujsj;jpy;
mike;Js;s filapd; rhtpia
kDjhuuplk; ,e;ej P pkd;wk; Kd;dpiyapy;
xg;gilf;fpnwd;/ nkYk; nkw;go brhj;jpy;
ehd; thliff;F tpl;Ls;s mKjh gphpahzp kw;Wk; gh!;l; g[l; vd;w bgahpy; eilbgWk; Xl;lypd; thlifia etk;gh;
2022 Kjy; kDjhuh; bgw;Wf;bfhs;s
rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/ nkw;go
thlifjhuhplkpUe;J 14/01/2022 njjpapl;l fil thlif xg;ge;jj;jpd; mog;gilapy; ehd; S.b$aghy; Re;juk; (thlifjhuh;) vd;gthplkpUe;J bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;s thlif Kd; gzk; U:/5.00.000-? j;ij (U:gha; Ie;J ,yl;rk; kl;Lk;) kDjhuUf;F 30/04/2023f;F Kd;du;
bkhj;jkhf ju cWjp TWfpnwd;/ nkw;go thlifjhuUf;F 01/11/2022 Kjy;
thlif xg;ge;jj;ij kDjhuh;
D.jhnkhjud; bgaUf;F khw;wp jut[k;
etk;gh; 2022 khj thlif U:/30.000-?
iaa[k; mjd; gpd; tUk; fhy';fSf;fhd thlifiaa[k; jhnkhjud; mth;fsplk;
U/30.000 tPjk; jtwhJ brYj;jp tUkhW xU xg;gi [ f fojk; vGjp bfhLf;f rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/ ,dp nkw;go O.S.
No.2481/2000 vd;w tHf;fpd; jPhg ; g ; [fF ;
vjpuhf bray;gl khl;nld; vd cWjp Twfpnwd;/
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
nkw;fz;l r';fjpfs; Xk;-- D.b$fd;ehjd aht[k; cz;ikbad;W vd; Kd;ghf Twp ,d;W 01/11/2022 njjpapy; vd; Kd;dhy; Sd/-MATHEW MOHAN.R ifbahg;gk; ,Lfpwhh; [Reg.No.820/2006, MHA] tHf;fwp“h;” : brd;id/
5. Jayapal Sundaram produced before us an unregistered rental
agreement dated 14.01.2022 entered into between him and Jagannathan in
respect of the shop situated on the ground floor of the property located at
New D.No.41 (Old No.13), Thiruvallur Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018,
for the purposes of running a business in the name and style “Amudha
Biriyani and Fast Food” therein.
6. Jagannathan also produced a letter dated 01.11.2022 addressed to Jayapal
Sundaram relinquishing his right under the rental agreement dated 14.01.2022
and recognizing Damodharan as his (Jayapal Sundaram's) landlord and
requesting him (Jayapal Sundaram) to pay the monthly rents to him
(Damodharan) directly hereinafter. However, Jayapal Sundaram contended
that he has given a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) as advance to Jagannathan and has invested around
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the business and further submitted
that his possession as the tenant should not be disturbed. In our opinion, there
appears to be sufficient force in the apprehension of Jayapal Sundaram.
7. Jagannathan has agreed that he will give the advance amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to Damodharan in installments
before 30.04.2023 and in the meanwhile, if Jayapal Sundaram is desirous of
vacating the premises, he would return the advance amount to Jayapal
Sundaram directly. This statement of Jagannathan is recorded.
8. We leave it open to Damodharan to enter into a fresh rental
agreement with Jayapal Sundaram in respect of the said shop.
9. At this juncture, Jayapal Sundaram stated that as regards electricity
consumption charges, there is a separate sub-meter installed for the shop and
that he would pay the electricity charges as demanded by Jagannathan, since
the electricity consumption reading card is in the name of Jagannathan and
that Jagannathan would directly remit the amount to the Electricity Board.
Therefore, Jayapal Sundaram, prayed for a clarification on this aspect.
10. Since, the electricity consumption reading card is in the name of
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
Jagannathan, rightly or wrongly, Jayapal Sundaram, may pay the electricity
consumption charges directly to him (Jagannathan) as before until
Damodharan gets a separate service connection in his name or has changed
the existing service connection in his name. Jagannathan has, today, handed
over the keys of the shop in dispute physically to Damodharan, who, in turn,
handed over the keys to Jayapal Sundaram (tenant) and his wife Valliammai
Jayapal Sundaram, recognizing Jayapal Sundaram as his tenant. Jayapal
Sundaram stated that he would recognize Damodharan as his landlord and
pay the rents to him.
11. In view of the above, Jagannathan stands discharged from the
present contempt proceedings.
12. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not in any manner
affect the civil rights of the parties, if any. As long as Jayapal Sundaram pays
the rent and the electricity consumption charges regularly and continues to be
the tenant in the said shop, we make it clear that both Damodharan and
Jagannathan, shall not cause any discontinuation of electricity and water
supply to the shop premises. If they do so, it is open for Jayapal Sundaram to
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
approach the Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai and
give a complaint and on such complaint being given, the Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai, shall act on the same in accordance
with law.
In the result, this contempt petition is closed with the above
directions.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKR., J.)
01..11..2022
Index: Yes/No
kmk
To
1.The III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.Mr.Jayapal Sundaram (Tenant), D.No.41 (Old No.13), Thiruvallur Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J.,
kmk
Cont.P.No.1287 of 2022
01..11..2022
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
