[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Saraswathi Educational Cultural And ... vs M/S. Sree Annamalaiyar Educational ... on 30 April, 2026
CONT P No. 1695 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CONT P No. 1695 of 2026
Saraswathi Educational Cultural and Charitable
Trust, represented by Priyadarshini Rajkumar,
C/o. Irrigation Products International Private
Limited,
2nd Floor, 4/113 East Coast Road,
Neelankarai, Chennai-600 115.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Sree Annamalaiyar Educational Trust
represented by P.Navamani,
C/o Madras Institute of Hotel Management and
Catering Technology,
60, Poonamalle High Road, Kumananchavadi,
Kattupakkam, Chennai-46.
..Contemnor(s)
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of thee Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, to punish the respondent herein for wilful disobedience of the order of
this Court dated 17.02.2026 passed in C.R.P.No. 5332 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Advocate
for Mrs.C.Shankary
For Contemnor(s): Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan for M/s.RRN Legal
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CONT P No. 1695 of 2026
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed to punish the respondent herein for wilful
disobedience of the order of this Court dated 17.02.2026 passed in C.R.P.No.
5332 of 2025.
2. The contempt petitioner filed E.P.No.164 of 2023 before the
Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, for eviction and delivery of
possession of the demised premises by the respondent. The said E.P. was
allowed on 16.09.2025. The respondent herein filed C.R.P.No.5332 of 2025
challenging the said order in the E.P. On the basis of the undertaking given by
the respondent, the said C.R.P. was disposed of on 07.11.2025, by granting time
to the respondent, to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises
on or before 31.01.2026, subject to the encashment of the cheque dated
29.11.2025. The respondent was further directed to vacate and hand over the
vacant possession, as per the undertaking, without inducting third party into
possession of the property and without driving the petitioner to execute the
eviction. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application in C.M.P.No.1934 of
2026 for extension of time to vacate and hand over possession and this Court,
by order dated 17.02.2026, granted the respondent time till 30.04.2026 to
vacate. The respondent, just before the expiry of the extended period, by
changing the counsel, filed C.M.P.No.10780 of 2026, seeking further extension
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of time to vacate and hand over the possession with an undertaking to hand over
the possession by 31.10.2026. Meanwhile, the landlord filed this contempt
petition to punish the respondent herein for wilful disobedience of the order of
this Court dated 17.02.2026 passed in C.R.P.No. 5332 of 2025.
3. On 27.04.2026, both the contempt petition as well as the extension
petition were heard together and when this Court was about to dismiss the
extension petition on merits, the respondent sought permission of the Court to
withdraw the extension petition. In view of the submission and endorsement
made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the extension petition was
dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the contempt petition, the Court directed
the respondent to comply with his undertaking given on 17.02.2026, and to
vacate and deliver possession by 30.04.2026. The contempt petition was
directed to be listed “for reporting compliance” today.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel for the respondent, instead of handing over the keys to the contempt
petitioner, sought further time to vacate the premises.
5. This Court is appalled by the conduct of the respondent and his
audacity in seeking further time in the teeth of the order directing him to vacate
and hand over the possession. The above facts are narrated only to drive home
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the point that the respondent, despite submitting undertaking to the Court twice,
has failed to abide by the same, rendering the solemn affidavit meaningless. The
conduct of the respondent reflects his contumacious disrespect and disregard for
the dignity and majesty of this Court.
6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Sharma Vs. Bulbul Birla and others reported
in (2011) 6 SCC 449, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering
the violation of the undertaking given to it by a party, held as follows:
"3. We further make it clear that when this Court allows
the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the
petition/appeal of the tenant and grants some time to vacate the
premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the
time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a
general direction we are passing because we are coming across
several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in
question despite granting time by this Court or despite
furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the
landlord has to initiate contempt proceedings or any other
proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction that when the
tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to
vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by
police force if he does not vacate of his own. "
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the present case, the respondent has given two undertakings
before this Court, first, on 17.11.2025, undertaking to vacate and hand over the
vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.01.2026, and subsequently,
another undertaking in C.M.P.No.1934 of 2026, undertaking to vacate the
premises by 30.04.2026. On the strength of these successive undertakings, the
respondent, has in effect, delayed the delivery of possession by a period of six
months.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, and in view of the
clear violation of the earlier undertakings given by the respondent, this Court
deems it appropriate to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the
process of eviction.
9. Accordingly, if the respondent fails to vacate the premises on or
before 10.30 a.m. on 04.05.2026, Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain (Ms.4694/2021),
learned counsel, having office at M-13, B Singapore Plaza, No.337, Linghi
Chetty Street, Chennai, is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner. In the
event of non-compliance, the learned Advocate Commissioner is authorised to
secure the vacant possession of the premises with the assistance of the
jurisdictional police viz. The Inspector of Police, T-12 Police Station,
Poonamallee and hand over such possession to the petitioner. The learned
Advocate Commissioner shall ensure videography of the entire proceedings.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner shall pay the remuneration of Rs.15,000/- to the learned
Advocate Commissioner. The respondent shall vacate the premises on the basis
of the web copy of this order. Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned Advocate
Commissioner shall act on the basis of the web copy of the order. Even the
jurisdictional police shall extend their assistance on the basis of the web copy
without insisting on the certified copy.
9. With the above observations and directions, this contempt petition
stands closed.
Post the matter on 01.06.2026 "for reporting compliance".
30-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsd
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.MALA J.
nsd
30-04-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
