D.M. BELGAMVALA versus TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES (P) LTD.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1072 · Decided: 24-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1072 
D.M. BELGAMVALA 
v. 
TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES (P) LTD. 
(I.A. No. 2/2010 in S.L.P. (C} No. 13740/2010 etc.) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Administration of Justice: 
c 
Abuse of process of court - SLP against eviction of tenant 
dismissed by Supreme Court - Tenant filing an undertaking 
to vacate the premises -
Thereafter tenant filing the 
interlocutory application for a direction that he need not to 
vacate the premises till the disposal of the review petition or 
0 in the alternative stay of dispossessin may be granted -
HELD: The application is a sheer abuse of the process of the 
court - The tenant be evicted from the premises forthwith by 
using police force, ignoring the stay of eviction stated to have 
been passed by the High Court - Rent Control and Eviction. 
E 
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: 
Stay order -
Granted by High Court - Long after 
dismissal of tenant's SLP against eviction, by Supreme Court 
- HELD: This was not expected of the High Court - Judicial 
F discipline requires that High Courts should not try to override 
orders passed by Supreme Court -
Rent Control and 
Eviction. 
G 
H 
CONTEMPT OF COURT: 
Contempt of Order of Supreme Court - SLP against 
e.:iction on the ground of reconstruction of the old premises 
dismissed by Supreme Court -
Tenant furnishing an 
undertaking to vacate the premises -
Thereafter, 
1072 
D.M. BELGAMVALA v. TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES 1073 
(P) LTD. 
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation revoking the 
A 
premission to demolish the premises -
HELD: The 
Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation is hand-in-glove 
with the tenant and it is for this reason that he has passed this 
collusive and contemptuous order merely to get over the 
order of Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition 
B 
- Issue contempt of court notice to the Commissioner of 
Municipal as well as to the trying to set at naught the order of 
the Supreme Court - Rent Control and Eviction. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 2 of 2010. 
IN 
S.L.P. (C) No. 13704 of 2010 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.2.2010 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3081 of D 
2009. 
K.K. Mani, Abhishek Krishna for the Petitioner. 
V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
E 
This is a typical case of a litigant trying to take this Court 
F 
for a ride. 
In this case, the landlord had filed an eviction peition 
against the petitioner-tenant which had been decreed by the 
courts below, including the High Court. The eviction was 
granted on the ground that the building in question is more than 
G 
100 years old and needed demolition and fresh construction. 
The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13704 of 2010 filed by the 
petitioner against the order of the High Court was dismissed 
by this Court by order dated 14.5.2010 and the petitioner _Ii 
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A (tenant) was granted six months time from 14.5.2010 to vacate 
the premises in question subject to filing ususal undertaking 
before this Court. The petitioner had furnished the undertaking 
to vacate the premises in question as directed by this Court. 
8 
Despite this undertaking, the petitioner has not vacated, 
and instead he has filed this application on 12.11.2010 praying 
for a drection that the petitioner need not vacate the suit 
premises till the final orders passed in the Review Petition of 
in the alternative grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner 
C from the suit premises. 
In our opinion, this application is a sheer abuse of the 
process of thE;! court. 
Along with the application an order dated 18.06.2010 of 
0 the Commissioner, corporation of Chennai has been filed 
purporting to revoke the permission to demolish the property 
in question. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner, 
Corporaion of Chennai is hand-in-glove with the petitioner and 
it is for this reason that he has passed this collussive and 
E contemtuous order dated 18.06.2010 merely to get over our 
order dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.201. 
Issue contempt of court notice to the Commissioner, 
Corporation of Channai as well as to the petitioner in this case 
to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt 
F of court for trying to take this court for a ride and set at naught 
our order dated 14.5.2010. 
We further direct that the petitioner be evicted from the 
prem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.