In a contempt proceeding alleging disobedience to rent control revision order, the Court held that without a specific undertaking or order directing the tenant to vacate, no contempt case could be maintained, so the petition was rejected.
The filed contempt case is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929
Con.Case(C).No. 1682 of 2007(S)
------------------------------------------------------ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN RCR.No.297/2006 DATED 14-8-2006 (RCA.No.8/2003 THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY PALAKKAD) (RCP.No.22/96 OF RENT CONTROL(MUNSIFF) COURT, OTTAPPALAM)
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
---------------------------------------------------------LAKSHMIKUTTY, W/O. LATE SHRI. SIVASANKARAN, AGED 64, RESIDING AT THRIKKANGODE AMSOM, CHOROTTOOR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
SHRI. C.S.MANICHETTIAR, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6/353, MANNANOOR DESOM, P.O.KAVALAPPARA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK.
BY ADV.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (Civil) No.1682 of 2007-S
---------------------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 4th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The petitioner alleges in this contempt case filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, that, the respondent/contemnor has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in R.C.Rev.No.297 of 2006 dated 14th August, 2006. In this contempt case the request is to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondent and punish him for the so called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court.
(2). The tenant was before this Court in R.C.Rev.No.297 of 2006, inter alia, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No. 22 of 1996. This Court, while rejecting the Rent Control Revision Petition filed, had granted one year's time to the tenant, to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the premises in his possession. The petitioner/complainant submits that, the respondent in the contempt case has not complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court.
(3). In our opinion, since there was no undertaking by the tenant before this Court and since no orders were passed directing the revision petitioner to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the premises
COC.NO.1682/07 -2-
on a request made by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, no contempt case would lie before this Court. If, for any reason, the tenant has not vacated the premises as directed by this Court, the landlord/landlady necessarily has to file appropriate Execution Petition before the Executing Court. Accordingly, we do not intend to take cognizance of this contempt case filed by the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, the contempt case requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
( H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE
MS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt case lies before this Court where no undertaking was given by the tenant nor was an explicit order passed directing them to quit and deliver vacant possession.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lakshmikutty
C.S.Manichettiar
H.L.Dattu
K.M.Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
