IMPORTANT POINT
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not apply to Public Ltd. Companies having a paid up share capital of Rs. one crore or more. In that case provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 would apply.

JUDGMENT

H.L.GOKHALE, J.

This contempt petition makes a grievance that the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. has not complied with the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by this Court while dismissing their SLP (C) No.24874 of 2013, and an action be taken against them for committing contempt of the above order passed by this Court. The said order dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent, challenging their eviction from the premises occupied by them. However, considering the number of employees who were engaged in their registered office situated at that place, they were granted time till the end of December, 2014 to vacate the premises, subject to filing the usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from that date, stating that the petitioner will not create any third party rights, all the mesne profits will be paid in the meanwhile, and will peacefully vacate the premises concerned at the end of December, 2014.

2. That special leave petition was filed to challenge the judgment dated 10th May, 2013 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2898/2011 and L.P.A. No.174 of 2012 under which the order passed by the Estate Officer of the appellant, and confirmed by the City Civil Court was left undisturbed. The order dated 19th August, 2013 required the respondent to file the necessary undertaking, but it was not filed, and the mesne profits as required have also not been paid. It is also pointed out that subsequently one more I.A., being I.A. No.2 of 2014, was taken out by the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. to be relieved of this undertaking, and that I.A. was not pressed, and the same came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated 7th October, 2013.

3. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner Central Bank of India points out that the financial difficulties of the respondent were placed on record in that I.A. and subsequently the same has been withdrawn. That being so, there was no reason for the respondent not to file the undertaking and not to pay the mesne profits as required. He has drawn our attention to two judgments of this Court in almost similar circumstances. One was the case of Ram Pyari (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Jagdish Lal reported in 1992 (1) SCC 157, and the other was that of Santanu Chaudhuri vs. Subir Ghosh reported in 2007 (10) SCC 253. In both these matters undertakings to vacate were given but they were not complied with, and therefore the contempt petition was filed. This Court in both these matters noted that since undertaking was not given, there could not be any contempt as such, but the order passed by this Court had to be complied with, and therefore permitted the petitioners to take the help of police to take back the possession of the concerned premises.

4. Mr. T.R. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel, appeared for the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Gobind Ram reported in 1990 (1) SCC 193 to submit that the Estate Officer was coram non judice, since according to him he did not have jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction. He referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana reported in 2013 (10) SCC 136 to submit that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. He has drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in C.A.No.1970 of 2014 on 11th February, 2014 in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Its Estate Officer to which one of us (H.L. Gokhale,J.) was a party. Mr. Andhiyarujina has submitted that this judgment clearly lays down that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 will not apply prior to the Act coming into force, that is prior to 16th September, 1958. He has drawn our attention to various paragraphs of this judgment and submitted that though this judgment has been rendered subsequent to the dismissal of the present special leave petition, ina