Willful disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt, subjecting the respondent to financial penalties, while avoiding imprisonment in appropriate circumstances.

ORDER :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Contempt Petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for not having complied with the direction of this Court issued vide Order dated 02.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No.4646/2024.

2. Under the said directions, the respondent had to handover vacant possession of the subject premises on/before 31.05.2024 to the petitioner and was also required to continue paying the occupation charge(s) on a monthly basis, till such time as the possession was handed over.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that though the rental amount till May, 2024 has been paid within time, but possession was not handed over by the respondent, and ultimately through the process of the Court in execution through the bailiff, possession was delivered to the petitioner on 04.11.2024.

4. Before this Court in the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, a categorical statement has been made at Paragraph No.2 which reads as under:

2. The Respondent complying to the same order vacated the premises on 03.05.2024 and further provided demand draft to the petitioner towards payment of the rent for the month ending with May 2024.'

5. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the clear stand of the respondent is that he vacated the premises on 03.05.2024.

6. We would only comment on such pleading that the language, it appears, has been cleverly employed to indicate that the respondent had only vacated the subject premises on 03.05.2024. There is no averment that vacant possession of the subject premises was handed over to the petitioner, as was the specific direction of this Court in its Order dated 02.04.2024. Moreover, on a query of this Court as to what is the material showing that the respondent had vacated the premises, learned counsel for the respondent could not demonstrate any material in this regard. The stand was that the respondent has made a statement in the compliance affidavit (supra) that he had vacated the subject premises on 03.05.2024.

7. From a copy of the order of the Execution Court dated 03.10.2024, where the execution proceedings took place, it transpires that till that day, the subject premises was under lock and thus, the bailiff also, in the absence of an order to break open the lock, could not take possession.

8. In the aforesaid background, the respondent is clearly in contempt for having deliberately and wilfully violated Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.4646/2024. Further, the respondent has also made false averment in the compliance affidavit.

9. Thus, we called upon learned counsel for the respondent to assist the Court as to what fate should befall the respondent for conduct as aforesaid.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court may take a lenient view and besides the five-months' rental/occupation charge(s) which has not been paid for the subject premises for the period of additional occupation, reasonable cost may be imposed and the petitioner may not be given any prison sentence.

11. Having considered the matter in its entirety, in view of the fact that as of now the subject premises have been vacated and possession has been taken over by the petitioner, we are inclined to spare the respondent from formal prosecution for contempt and from any jail time, yet occupation charge(s) for five months, which would amount to Rs.3500/- has to be paid. Accordingly, acceding to the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, we impose cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), inclusive of occupation charge(s), on the respondent, to be