IMPORTANT POINT
The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law to impede the administration of justice and making an attempt in delaying the delivery of possession, amounts to criminal contempt of Court.

Headnote:(i) CONTEMPT OF COURT-Eviction order-Order extending time for vacation of suit premises passed on basis of agreement between parties-No representation made by tenant before Court-It was landlord who agreed to unconditional extension of time for respondent to vacate-Breach of order-Whether respondent is liable to be punished for contempt of Court?-(No).
       Held : Law is well settled that if any party gives an undertaking to the Court to vacate the premises from which he is liable to be evicted under the orders of the Court and there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof it amounts to civil contempt but since, in the present case, the respondent did not file any undertaking as envisaged in the order of this Court the question of his being punished for breach thereof does not arise. However, in our considered view even in a case where no such undertaking is given, a party to a litigation may be held liable for such contempt if the Court is induced to sanction a particular course of action or inaction on the basis of the representation of such a party and the Court ultimately finds that the party never intended to act on such representation or such representation was false. In other words, if on the representation of the respondent herein the Court was persuaded to pass the order dated October 5, 1995 extending the time for vacation of the suit premises, he may be held guilty of contempt of Court, notwithstanding non furnishing of the undertaking, if it is found that the representation was false and the respondent never intended to act upon it. However, the respondent herein cannot be held liable for contempt on this score also for the order in question clearly indicates that it was passed on the basis of the agreement between the parties and not on the representation of the respondent made before the Court. It was the petitioner who agreed to the unconditional extension of time by four weeks for the respondent to vacate and subsequent extension of time on his giving an undertaking and this Court only embodied the terms of the agreement so arrived at, in the order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent cannot in any way be held liable for contempt for alleged breach of the above order. (Para 12)
       (ii) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT-Making false statements before this Court in affidavits filed-Deliberate attempts made to impede administration of justice and also in delaying delivery of possession-Respondent held guilty of criminal contempt of Court-Sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/-. (Paras 14 & 15)

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-The instant proceeding for contempt stems from a petition filed by Prakash Lal Sharma under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on September 9, 1985 seeking eviction of the respondent herein from one room and garage (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises ) on the ground floor of House No. 1572, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed. Against such dismissal he filed a revision petition in the High Court but without success. Thereafter, with the leave of this Court, he filed an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1989 which was ultimately dismissed by this Court on October 5, 1994 with the following order :

"Delay condoned. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, as agreed to by both the learned counsel, time to hand over vacant possession to Smt. Rita Markandey is granted till 31st March 1995. This shall be subject to the usual undertaking to be filed by the appellant-tenant within four weeks from today."

2. On the respondent s failure to handover vacant possession of the suit premises on or before March 31, 1995 to Smt. Rita Markandey (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), the daughter of Prakash Lal Sharma, who had died in the meantime, in terms of the above order she put in an application for execution of the eviction order before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh in or about the month of May, 1995. On that application a notice was issued to the respondent asking him to show cause why the eviction order should not be executed. In showing cause the respondent asserted that he was in occupation of three rooms, one garage, one store, one kitchen, one bathroom and a toilet on the ground floor of the house in question - and not only of the suit premises - and therefore the eviction sought for was impermissible. Other contentious issues of fact and law against the execution were also raised.

3. Before, however, the matter could be further pursued by the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed the petition, out of which the instant proceeding arises. In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner has averred, inter alia as follows :

"The contemner was shown indulgence by this Court by giving him 6 months time, but on the contrary he has by his conduct flagrantly misused rather abused, the indulgence of this Court firstly by gaining 4 weeks time to file an undertaking and thereafter refusing to file the said undertaking and simultaneously contesting the execution application dated 29.5.1995 filed by the petitioner in return filing an objection petition on 17.7.1995. This conduct of the contemner/tenant firstly gaining 4 weeks time from this Court for filing an undertaking and thereafter refusing to file an undertaking is palpable act and omission on the part of the Contemner which amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 5th October, 1994 passed by this Court.

4. On the basis of the above averments the petitioner has contended that the respondent has committed contempt by wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated October 5, 1994. The other ground, canvassed by the petitioner in support of her contention that the respondent is liable to be punished for contempt, finds place in paragraph 12 of the petition which reads as under :

"That .................................... in the objection petition filed by the Contemner-respondent he had stated therein that he is in occupation of three rooms, one garage, one store, one kitchen and a bathroom in addition to one toilet on the ground floor of the disputed house. This new plea of the petitioner is contrary to his pleadings before the Rent Controller right upto this Hon ble Court in Appeal. This is a specific example of usurping of the property of peaceful and law abiding citizen by a contriving and a scheming property dealer. This specifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1563

IMPORTANT POINTThe filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law to impede the administration of justice and making an attempt in delaying the delivery of possession, amounts to criminal contempt of Court.

IMPORTANT POINT
The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law to impede the administration of justice and making an attempt in delaying the delivery of possession, amounts to criminal contempt of Court.