In a contempt proceeding, the court examined allegations that the respondent tenant willfully violated orders to vacate premises. Finding the respondent failed to vacate despite prior orders and undertaking, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment.
Sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months.
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.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Contempt Case No.843 of 2011
DATED: 12.09.2011
BETWEEN: Haneef Ahmed .. Petitioner And Mohd.Shabbir .. Respondent
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Contempt Case No.843 of 2011
ORDER:
I have heard Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.Siva Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also the respondent in person.
The brief facts relating to contempt case may be stated as follows:
The petitioner/landlord filed R.C.N.202 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the schedule premises in the ground floor bearing No.22-7-203/B, Devandevdi, Hyderabad on the ground of committing willful default in payment of rent and also that the premises was required bona fide, for personal occupation of the petitioner/landlord. The rent control case was allowed and the respondent/tenant was evicted by the learned rent controller by his order dated 19.11.2007.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/tenant preferred an appeal i.e. R.A.No.7 of 2008 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said R.A. was dismissed by the judgment dated 12.10.2009 confirming the order passed by the rent controller.
Thereafter, the respondent/tenant filed C.R.P.No.6011 of 2009 before this Court. In the said revision petition, the petitioner/respondent/tenant filed an undertaking affidavit before this Court to vacate the premises within one year. The said revision petition was dismissed directing the respondent to vacate the premises
on or before 30.06.2010 and handover the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner/landlord. The respondent/tenant did not vacate the premises and instead filed C.R.P.M.P.No.3469 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.6011 of 2009 seeking extension of time to vacate the premises for further period of three months. This Court, however, granted six more months’ time to vacate the premises by its order dated 25.06.2010 directing the respondent/tenant to vacate the premises on or before 30.12.2010
The respondent/tenant did not vacate the premises and again filed C.R.P.M.P.No.8026 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.6011 of 2009 seeking further extension of six months time to vacate the petition schedule premises. The said petition was dismissed by this Court by its order date 25.01.2011. Under these circumstances, the petitioner/landlord filed contempt case alleging that the respondent/tenant violated the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.6011 of 2009 and C.R.P.M.P.No.3469 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.6011 of 009.
The respondent/tenant filed counter affidavit contending that he has not violated the undertaking given before this Court. He submitted that as per the undertaking given by him before this Court, he had already delivered the vacant possession of the above said premises to the petitioner/landlord and handed over the same and therefore, he has not committed any contempt or violation of the undertaking given before this Court. Furthermore, he stated that he has complied with the orders passed by this Court. Contending as such, the respondent/tenant sought to dismiss the contempt petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/landlord would submit that without delivering the vacant possession of the schedule premises, the respondent/tenant has been falsely contending that he delivered the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The learned counsel filed photograph said to have been taken on
04.04.2011 at 10.35 AM showing that the respondent’s son was running business in the schedule premises and another photograph said to have been taken on 07.09.2011 at 6.30 PM showing that his nephew was transacting the business from the schedule premises. The learned counsel further submitted that in E.P.No.4 of 2011 filed by the petitioner/landlord in R.C.No.202 of 2003, the respondent/tenant filed claim petition i.e. E.A.No.4 of 2011 through nephew claiming that he is in possession of the said premises as a tenant. Ultimately the said claim petition was dismissed by the learned rent controller.
In view of the undertaking given by the respondent/tenant and making subsequent applications seeking extension of time, it is his duty to deliver possession of the schedule premises and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner/landlord. But, it is obvious that the respondent/tenant has been falsely contending that he delivered vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner/landlord. If really he delivered possession of the premises, absolutely, there is no need for the petitioner/landlord to file contempt case against him. The respondent/tenant did not file any receipt or any other document showing that he delivered the possession of the premises to the petitioner/landlord.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, which are referred hereinabove, this Court arrived at a decision that the respondent/tenant deliberately and willfully violated the orders of this Court by not vacating the premises as per the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.6011 of 2009 which is based on his undertaking and the subsequent order passed in C.R.P.M.P.No.3469 of 2010 wherein he sought for extension of time. The respondent/tenant is therefore liable for contempt of Court for the aforementioned orders passed by this Court and he is liable for punishment.
The respondent/tenant is found guilty for the contempt of Court
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1972 and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Accordingly, the contempt case is disposed of as stated above.
__________________ Date: 12.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Contempt Case No.843 of 2011
DATED: 12.09.2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent is guilty of contempt for violating orders to vacate premises
Whether the respondent’s claim of delivering possession is credible
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haneef Ahmed
Mohd. Shabbir
R. Kant Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
