K.C.G. VERGHESE versus K.T. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 24-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
K.C.G. VERGHESE 
v. 
K.T. RAJENDRAN AND ANR. 
JANUARY 24, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
Eviction of tenant-Part of tenanted premises in possession of tenant's 
brother-Ejectment of tenant's brother-Tenant's appeal dismissed by Supreme 
Court-Tenant filing an undertaking to hand over the premises to landlord 
on or before specified date-Later tenant intimating landlord to have vacated 
the portion of suit premises in his possession except the portion in possession 
D of his brother-Landlord filing contempt petition before Supreme Court against 
tenant and his brother-Tenant's brother contending that he not being a party 
in the case, Wai not liable to contempt-Held, contempt proceedings against 
tenant's brother discharged-However, tenant while filing undertaking before 
the Court did not indicate that his brother occupied portion of suit premises 
nor was such a stand taken at any stage of the proceedings-Thus order of 
E eviction passed against the tenant is equally binding upon his brother-Besides, 
in the power of attorney executed in respect of the tenanted premises, there 
being no mention of independent right of tenant's brother to the premises, his 
· objection to vacating the premises is overruled-Principal Judge, City Civil 
and Session Court would take steps to eject tenant's brother, if necessary, 
F with police help, from the premises-Contempt of Court. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition Nos 280-
281/2000. 
IN 
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5393-94/1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1999 of the High Court of 
Madras in CRP 1001 and 1002/95. 
Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal, T.V. George and Rakesh Dahiya for the 
552 
-->-
K.C.G. VERGHESE v. K.T. RAJENDRAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.)553 
Petitioner. 
A 
A.T.M. Sampath and Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. On an order of eviction passed against him B 
in RCOP NO. 3598/86 by the Rent Controller the contemnor No. I-KT. 
Rajendran-filed C.R.P. Nos 1001-1002 of 1995 on the file the High Court of 
Madras and on dismissal thereof, Special Leave Petition Nos. 5393-94 of 
1999 were filed before this Court. On 31.1.2000 this Court made an order 
dismissing the said petition, however, subject to the usual undertaking filed 
within two weeks from that date and contemnor No. I was granted six months C 
time to vacate the suit premises, that is, No.7, IV Main Road, Gandhi. Nagar, 
Adyar-1500 020. He filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit on 
7.2.2000 stating that 'he will not induct any other person in the suit premises 
and shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to · 
the Landlords/respondents on or before 31st July, 2000 '. Thereafter, on D 
29.6.2000 he intimated the complainant that he had vacated the portion in his 
occupation in premises No.7, IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar-1500 020 
and the rest of the portion is in possession of his brother K.T. Baskaran's 
pursuant to an agreement of sale with him. By his letter dated 1.7.2000 he 
also intimated that he is negotiating with K.T. Baskaran for delivery of 
possession but he is insisting on performance of the agreements of sale with E 
him and that will try to persuade him through mutual friends. 
On these facts, the complainant brought this complaint stating that 
contemnor No. I has not complied with the orders passed by this Court and 
contemnor No.2 is helping the first contemnor in not handing over the suit 
premises to him. The stand taken before us by contemnor No. I is the same F 
as stated earlier that portion of the premises in his possession has been vacated 
by him and the other portion has not been vacated since it is not in his 
possession but is in possession of his brother K.T. Baskaran. The said K.T. 
Baskaran, contemnor No.2 took the stand that he is not a party to the 
proceedings taken by the complainant against K.T. Rajendran either in the G 
special leave petition filed before this Court or in any of the earlier proceedings 
and, therefore, question of his disobeying the orders passed by this Court 
could not arise at all; that the building comprised of ground floor, first floor 
and second floor and he is occupying the ground floor since 1989 by way of 
independent right under oral agreement between the complainant and the 
deponent by which an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 had been paid in cash to sell; H 
5
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.