Smt. M.Sreedevi, vs Sri. M.Krishna Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1783 Tel

                                       1
                                                                        Dr.GRR, J
                                                                     cc_106_2020

      THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                 CONTEMPT CASE No.106 OF 2020

ORDER:

This Petition is filed under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act,

1971 to punish the respondent herein who is the appellant in the Second Appeal

for deliberately and willfully flouting the orders of this Court in S.A.No.1 of

2019 dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Sri B.Siva Sankara Rao.

2. The respondent herein filed S.A.No.1 of 2019 against the judgment and

decree dated 07.03.2018 in A.S.No.124 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018 passed by the

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.462 of 2013 passed by the VII

Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

3. This Court while dismissing the Second Appeal at the stage of admission

directed the respondent herein, who is the appellant - tenant in S.A.No.1 of

2019 to vacate the premises within 10 months time from the date of passing of

the judgment on 25.01.2019 i.e. by 30.11.2019 after recording an oral

undertaking of the counsel who requested for such time to secure alternative

accommodation and to deposit use and occupation charges of Rs.10,000/- from

01.01.2019 onwards in the bank account of the landlord till vacating the

Dr.GRR, J cc_106_2020

premises by 5th of every succeeding month and to give an undertaking not to

allow any third party into the premises and to vacate in the meantime, otherwise

liable for contempt. It was also made clear that the appellant - tenant should

not alter the premises and should not allow any third party and must vacate the

premises on or before the time granted and if failed to comply any of the

conditions, the appellant - tenant was liable for action to be initiated under

contempt of the court, without prejudice to the right of the respondent - tenant

after efflux of time fixed. The security deposit, if any, was directed to be

adjusted at the time of vacating the premises.

4. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that

the petitioner (landlord) issued a notice to the respondent on 18.11.2019

reminding the respondent for compliance of the orders of the court to vacate the

premises by 30.11.2019 and the same was duly served, but the respondent gave

a reply notice as if the petitioner orally agreed to sell her property to the

respondent, which was an utter lie and false. When the petitioner was fighting

for her property from 2013 onwards, the question of agreeing to sell the

property to the respondent would not arise. In continuation of the evil intention

of the respondent, the respondent further filed a false and fictitious suit vide

O.S.No.448 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri

for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement. The petitioner was once

again dragged by the respondent to a further fictitious litigation. The period of

Dr.GRR, J cc_106_2020

10 months granted by the court lapsed on 30.11.2019 itself, but till date the

respondent had not vacated the premises. Further, in order to harass the

petitioner, who was an old aged lady of 76 years of age, the respondent filed

fictitious suit on an alleged oral agreement. The act on the part of the

respondent would amount to contempt of the court order dated 25.01.2019. The

respondent was bent upon to harass the petitioner in all aspects and he had no

respect towards the orders of the court and was continuing in the property of the

petitioner inspite of the orders of the court and prayed the court to come to its

rescue and to punish the respondent for not implementing the orders of the court

passed in S.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019.

5. Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice was

served on the respondent and he was represented by the learned counsel

Sri Madiraju Srinivasa Rao.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent requested to post the matter after

vacation. But, however considering that he did not choose to file his counter

and was taking time only to prolong the matter without complying the orders of

this Court contrary to the undertaking given by him through his counsel to

vacate the premises within 10 months i.e. by 30.11.2019, but reported to be

continuing in the premises deliberately flouting the orders of this Court passed

in S.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019, wherein he was also warned that he was

Dr.GRR, J cc_106_2020

liable for action to be initiated under contempt of court if not vacated the

premises by the said date, it is considered fit to allow the petition sentencing the

respondent to simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a

fine of Rs.2,000/- within four (04) weeks from today.

7. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed sentencing the respondent to

simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- within four (04) weeks from today.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J

25th April, 2023 Nsk.