LexSMT. RAM PYARI & ORS. versus JAGDISH LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAM PYARI v. JAGDISH [MOHAN, J.] 119 session of the suit premises to the respondent on or before A three months from today. 2. That the petitioner will pay to respondent arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today. 3. That the petitioner will pay to respondent future compensa- B tion for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the iOth day of every month. 4. That the petitioner will not induct any other person in the suit premises. The Court further directed that in defaultof compliance with any one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as required within ~e stipulated time, the decree shall become exe- cutable forthwith;" c For the disobedience of the above order, in neither filing the undertaking D nor paying the rent and failure to hand over the possession, the present petition fpr contempt has been preferred. Notice was ordered on the contempt petition · ol;t 6th May, 1991 returnable on 24,7.91. The counter affidavit has been filed inter-alia contending that the remedy of the applicant in the contempt petition (respondent in the special E leave petition) would be to execute the decree and not come by way of contempt. Besides, an order under the U.P.Public Premises Act had been passed against the applicant. Therefore, the owner of the premises is Municipal Board of Shahjananpur. Hence the applicant has no locus standi to maintain the petiti~n. Before us the same arguments as raised in the counter are reiterated. F '.fhe short question,. therefore, is whether the respondent is guilty of contempt of court We have already extracted the order passed by this Court on February 17, 1986. No doubt there is no violation of any specific direction contained in that order. Nevertheless we cannot agree with the respondent that the remedy will be only to execute the decree for eviction. He was granted three G months' time on condition that he will file an undertaking and pay the arrears of rent as well as future compensation. In so far as he derived specific advantages under the order, we are of the view, the proper course will be to issue such directions as were issued in an identical case reported in Firm Ganpat RamRajkumar v. KaluRam and Others,A.I.R. 1989 SC 2285. It was observed at page 2288 as under : H· A B c D E F 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. "This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and granted time of six months on the plea that the petitioner firm would file an undertaking. All this could not have happened if the present plaintiffs in the Narnaul suit had not consented or allowed it to be passed or stood by. It is difficult to accept the position that they did not know. In the facts of the case. we are of the opinion that they deliberately did not object to this Court passing the order and thereby allowed the firm to mislead this Court. They are, therefore, bound to see that the order of this Court is complied with. Though contempt is a serious matter and it interferes with the right of those who are found guilty of contempt, no court should allow any party to mislead the court and thereby frustrate its order. In the aforesaid view of the matter. we are of the opinion that though perhaps the respondents could not be found guilty of violating any undertaking as there was none, in the facts and circumstances of the case. this court should ensure compliance with its order dated 24th August. 1987 and see that vacant and peaceful possession is given to the applicant in the interest of justice ... "In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct the learned Sr. Sub- Judge, Narnaul (Haryana) to cause deliver up the vacant posses- sion of the shop situated at Sabji Mandi. Namaul. Distt. Mohinder- garh (Haryana). if necessary with the help of police forthwith. The learned Sr. Sub-Judge. Narnaul is also directed tO report compli- ance immediately." Similar direction in the present case would meet the ends of justice. Therefore. we hereby direct learned Additional Munsif of Shahjahanpur to cause delivery of vacant possession of the Shop No. 289 situate in Bazar Ba- · hadurganj, Shahjahanpur und~r City Board Shahjahanpur to the applicants. if necessary. with the help of police on or before 15th December, 1991. The learned Munsif is also directed to report compliance immediately. We make it clear that this order will not prevent or prejudice the applicants from taking any
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.