Amar Singh Saini S/O Late Shri ... vs Kapil Devani S/O Shri Prakash ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 972 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.792/2020

Amar Singh Saini S/o Late Shri Phoolchand Saini, Aged About 73
Years, R/o House No. 63, Bhairav Nagar, Hathwada Road, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Kapil Devani S/o Shri Prakash Devani, R/o House No. 53/85,
Mansarovar Yojna, Jaipur. Present R/o Shop No. 2, Situated In
House No. 30/55/01, Mansarovar Yojna, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Harshad Kapoor, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

30/01/2021

The instant contempt petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 10 read-with Section 12 of the Contempt

of Court Act, 1971 (hereafter 'the Act of 1971') for punishing the

respondent for deliberate disobedience of the judgment and

decree dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur in OA No.485/2019.

Learned counsel submitted that on an application being

filed before the Rent Tribunal on the basis of compromise, the

order was passed on 28.01.2020.

Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the

Rent Tribunal was required to be given effect and possession of

the suit property and shop was also required to be handed over

back by 01.02.2021 and certain amount as agreed between the

parties was to be paid in the month of July, 2020.

(2 of 4) [CCP-792/2020]

Learned counsel submitted that mesne profits were also

required to be paid.

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent did not

comply with the order and as such, petitioner does not have any

choice except to come to this Court for invoking provision of the

Act of 1971 for punishing the respondent-tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to satisfy

this Court with respect to availability of powers of High Court in

respect of orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and whether the Act

of 1971 can be invoked if the order of Subordinate Court is not

followed.

Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment passed

by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of N. Venkata

Swamy Naidu vs. M/s. Sri Sri Surya Teja Constructions Pvt.

Ltd & Ors. reported in [2008 Cri. L. J. 227]. Learned counsel on

the strength of the said judgment submitted that the Company

Law Board which has been constituted under the Companies Act,

1956 has been held to be Court within meaning of Section 10 of

Act of 1971 and the High Court has been permitted to exercise its

jurisdiction under Section 10 and the High Court can punish for

contempt for any willful disobedience of the orders of the

Company Law Board.

Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgment

further submitted that since the Rent Tribunal is subordinate to

this Court and as such, powers may be exercised.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This Court finds that as per provisions in Rajasthan

Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter 'the Act of 2001') execution of

the orders can be made as per Section 20 of the Act of 2001. The

(3 of 4) [CCP-792/2020]

said provision provides that an application can be made for

executing a final order or any other order passed by the Rent

Tribunal under the Act and various modes have been provided for

execution of the order including attachment and sale of the

movable or immovable property of the opposite party, arrest and

detention of the opposite party, attachment of bank accounts,

attachment of salary and allowance of a Government servant or

employee.

This Court further finds that the Rent Tribunal is vested

with the power to appoint the Local Administration or Local Body

or any officer of Local Body for execution of the order and delivery

of possession of the premises can also be made by the Tribunal

while executing the order.

This Court finds that the time limit is also prescribed

under sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the Act of 2001 for execution

proceedings in summary manner, and applications are required to

be disposed of within 45 days from the notice served on the

opposite party.

This Court finds that adequate mechanism is provided

under the Act of 2001 for execution of its own order and as such,

the parties who feel aggrieved due to non-execution of any order

passed by the Rent Tribunal, can move appropriate application as

per Section 20 of the Act of 2001.

This Court finds that the provisions of the Act of 1971

may not be attracted in respect of order passed by the Rent

Tribunal as adequate safeguard is given to the persons in whose

favour any order is passed by the Rent Tribunal.

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is not

entertained by this Court.

(4 of 4) [CCP-792/2020]

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Harshad Kapoor

submits that at-least liberty may be granted to the petitioner to

approach the Rent Tribunal for execution of the order and further

direction may be given to decide the application as per the time

limit prescribed under sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the Act of

2001.

This Court finds that if the petitioner moves appropriate

application for execution of the order, the Rent Tribunal is

expected to consider the relevant provisions and then to pass

necessary orders.

Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands

dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/15/Ramesh Vaishnav

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)