The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Sharma vs Munni Devi consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that any wilful violation of any order or decree, etc. would amount to contempt u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Facts
Petitioner is the owner of a built-up property admeasuring 223 Sq. Yards (“the premises in question”) purchased vide a registered sale deed. In 1973, the Petitioner permitted the Respondent’s husband to occupy an area of 50 Sq. Yards in the premises in question at a license fee of Rs.550/- per month. When the Petitioner returned to India from Nepal in 1982, he used to collect the licence fee every of 2-3 months. The Petitioner retired from service in 1996 and shifted to the premises in question. He asked the Respondent’s husband to vacate the portion of the premises in question. When the Respondent’s husband refused to, the Petitioner filed a Suit before the learned Additional District Judge.
Procedural History
The Respondent had filed a Suit against the Petitioner for a declaration that she was the owner of the premises in question by way of adverse possession as she had been staying at the premises for over twenty years. But she withdrew the said Suit in view of the statement made by the Petitioner that she would not be disposed from the premises in question without following the due process of law. In the Suit filed by the Petitioner, the Trial Court held that though the Petitioner proved that he is the owner, he had been unable to prove that the Respondent or her husband were liable to pay the licence fee or that there were any arrears. The Trial Court, holding that the Respondent agreed that she did not have any title document of the premises in question, directed the Respondent to handover the possession within two months from the date of the Order. Respondent challenged the said decree by filing a RFA which was disposed of but it was held that as agreed between the parties, the decree for mesne profits against the Respondent was waived off provided that she vacates on or before 15.10.2018. Court also directed the Respondent to file an undertaking to this effect within one week from the date of the Order. The undertaking was filed by the Respondent on 09.08.2018 wherein she undertook to vacate on or before 15.10.2018. After this Order, the Respondent filed a Suit u/s 6 & 9 of Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession, which was withdrawn. Since the Respondent had not vacated the premises in question, the instant contempt petition was filed.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: Respondent deliberately violated the Order passed by this Court in the RFA as well as the undertaking given to this Court. The Respondent’s story is prima facie wrong because had the Petitioner herein taken 50 Sq. Yards of the portion of land that was under the occupation of the Respondent, she would have stated so before this Court in the RFA proceedings. An undertaking would also not have been given by her stating that she would hand over the possession to the Petitioner on or before 15.10.2018. The police complaint does not indicate that the Petitioner has, at any time, forcibly occupied any portion of the land in the occupation of the Respondent.
Respondent: She was the owner and had perfected the title of the premises in question by way of adverse possession. The Petitioner is in possession of 50 Sq. Yards of the land in the premises in question which he has forcibly acquired. Respondent is an illiterate lady and that the undertaking was given only to the Petitioner and not to the Court. The Petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an execution petition and the instant contempt petition is not maintainable.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that there was no finding that the Respondent is in occupation of 100 Sq. Yards of land of the premises in question out of a total area of 223 Sq. Yards. Her defence of adverse possession was not accepted by the Trial Court. The Respondent was, therefore, not entitled to be in the possession of the property at all. It was also noted that the police complaints given by the Respondent also do not indicate that the Petitioner had taken forceful possession of any part of the premises in question. It was further noted that the Apex Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang held that u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 any wilful violation of any order or decree, etc. would be tantamount to contempt.
Judgment
The Bench noted that the Respondent falsely claimed that she was in possession of land in the premises in question without adducing any evidence to this effect in any of the suits. She also remained obstinate in her stance that the premises in question is possessed by her by way of adverse possession. So, she has committed contempt of Court and, being an encroacher, was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. This case is to be listed on 05.07.2022 for Order on sentencing. However, it remained open to the Respondent to take necessary steps to purge the contempt.
Case: Jai Bhagwan Sharma vs Munni Devi
Citation: CONT.CAS(C) 841/2018 & CM APPL. 21163/2021
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 2nd June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
