SANTANU CHAUDHURI versus SUBIR GHOSH

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 24-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SANTANU CHAUDHURI 
v. 
SUBIRGHOSH 
JULY 24, 2007 
[G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court-Contempt petition-Eviction decree-Supreme 
Court granting six months time to tenant to vacate premises subject to his 
C filing undertaking-Tenant did not file undertaking nor did he vacate the 
premises within the given time - Held: Court is to ensure compliance of order 
by ensuring delivery of possession to landlord-Thus, trial court directed to 
cause delivery of vacant possession of premises to landlord by eviction of 
tenant. 
D 
Petitioner-landlord filed eviction suit against respondent-tenant and the 
. same was dismissed. Petitioner filed an appeal. High Court allowed the same 
and passed decree for eviction against the respondent. Respondent then filed 
an SLP. The SLP was dismissed. Respondent was granted six months time to 
vacate the suit premises subject to his filing affidavit by way of undertaking. 
However, respondent did not file the undertaking nor did he vacate the 
E premises within the time granted. Petitioner then filed contempt petition. 
Respondent filed counter affidavit that since he did not file any affidavit or 
undertaking as directed by the Court in the SLP, no disobedience of any Order 
of this Court was committed; that the landlord could execute the decree 
forthwith; and that there )Vas no occasivn for initiating contempt proceedings 
F against him. 
Disposing of the petitiOn, the Court 
HELD: t.1 Time was granted to tlie tenant to vacate the disputed 
premises subject to his filing the usual undertaking within two weeks, but 
G the tenant did not file any undertaking nor did he vacate the premises. The 
Court should ensure compliance with its order and see that vacant and peaceful 
possession is given to the landlord in the interest of justice. 
lPara 51 l486-B, Cl 
1.2.Trial Court is directed to cause delivery of vacant possession of the 
H 
482 
SANTANU CHAUDHURI v.SUBIR GHOSH [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
483 
premises to the petitioner-landlord by eviction of the respondent-tenant or A 
anybody else found in occupation of the premises within the time granted. 
This Order would not prevent or prejudice the petitioner-landlord from taking 
any steps for recovery of rent and mesne profits. The petitioner would also be 
entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as cost. (Para 6) (486-D, El 
Firm Ganpatram Raj Kumar v. Kalu Ram, AIR (1989) SC 2285; and B 
Zahuru/ Islam v. Abu/ Ka/am and Ors., (19951 Supp. l SCC 464, relied on. 
R.N. Dey and Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 400, 
distinguished. 
Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora (1996) 6 SCC 14; Anil K. Surana C 
and Anr. v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2003) 10 Scale 580; Ram Pyari (Smt.) 
and Ors. v. Jagdish Lal, (1992) I SCC 157, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No. 249 of 
2006. 
IN 
SLP (C) No. 21766 of2005. 
WITH 
Contempt Petition (C) No. 23/2007 In SLP (C) No. 21766 of2005. 
Arun Jaitley and Mukul Rohatgi, Sr .. Adv., D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, 
Abhijit Sengupta, Indrani, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Tapan Kumar Sinha and Saumya 
Kundu for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment Order of the Court was delivered by 
G.P. MA THUR, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the landlord Santanu 
Chaudhuri for initiating contempt proceedings against the tenant Subir Ghosh. 
D 
E 
F 
2. The petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri filed a suit for eviction against 
Subir Ghosh in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 9th Court, Alipore, which G 
was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by a Division 
Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a decree for eviction was passed 
against the respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) on 25.8.2005. Subir Ghosh then 
filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21766 of 2005 in this Court. The 
petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri (landlord) also put in appearance on Caveat. 
The special leave petition was dismissed on 13.2.2006 and the following order H 
I 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A was passed 
"The special leave petition is dismissed. 
Counsel for the petitioner prays for six months' time to vacate the 
premises. Counsel for respondent present on caveat is agreeable to 
B 
the same. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the 
suit premises by 31st August, 2006 subject to filing the usual affidavit 
by way of undertaking within two weeks from today. 
An advance 
copy of the affidavit will be supplied to the counsel for the respondent." 
3. The presen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.