S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a case of criminal contempt against the respondent, Dr. A. Gopal, on a motion made by the learned Advocate General by way of a petition dated 12-7-1994 supported by an affidavit of a section officer in the office of the Advocate General. Congizance was taken by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-12-1994 and notice to the respondent for his presence on 30-1-1995 was ordered. Notice in Form 1 under Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ( the Act for short) read with Rule 18 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980 made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ( the Rules for short) was served on him personally with a copy of the petitioner and the affidavit in support of it.

( 2 ) THE respondent appeared in person on 30-1-1995 and requested two weeks time for filing counter. He gave his counter dated 16-2-1995 praying for the dismissal of the contempt case "as it suffers with laches and hit by Sections 4 to 6 and Rule 9 sub-Rule (4 ). " The counter is not supported by any affidavit as required by Rule 22 of the Rules.

( 3 ) THE facts forming the backdrop for this contempt case are as follows : One Mohd. Mumtaz Taher Khan sought eviction of A. Narayana Menon from premises bearing Municipal No. 2-1-586 (Block No. B37/f. 1) situated at Vigyanapuri Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad ( the tenanted premises for short) under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (1) (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 by way of an eviction petition numbered as R. C. No. 167 of 1988 before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Mohd. Mumtaz Taher Khan claimed that he purchased the tenanted premises from its owner Mohd. Salauddin under a registered sale deed dated 24-10-1987 and that his vendor attorned the tenancy of Narayana Menon in his favour by issuing letter dated 24-10-1987 calling upon him to pay the rents from 1-11-1987 to Mohd. Mumtaz Taher Khan. Eviction was sought on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement and willful default in the payment of rents. After detailed consideration of the matter, the Rent Controller in his order dated 24-2-1992 found that willful default was not made out, but upheld the plea of bona fide requirement and in the result allowed the petition and directed Narayana Menon to be evicted giving two months time to him for vacating the tenanted premises. Narayana Menon preferred appeal R. A. No. 162 of 1992 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the said appeal was dismissed by the Chief Judge by order dated 23-4-1993 granting three months time for vacating. Questioning the said order Narayana Menon preferred C. R. P. No. 2427 of 1993 and the same was dismissed by J. Esawara Prasad, J. at the admission stage by order dated 30-7-1993 however granting three months time for vacating the tenanted premises. Thereafter he preferred Review Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 13616 of 1993 in that C. R. P. for reviewing the order dated 30-7-1993 on the ground that he secured two documents to show that Mohd. Mumtaz Taher Khan was owner of another building and that he did not bona fide require the tenanted premises for personal occupation. J. Eswara Prasad, J. dismissed the same by order dated 24-9-1993 extending the time granted for vacating the tenanted premises up to 30-11-1993 observing that the documents sought to be relied upon did not form part of the record and that there was no petition for receiving the additional evidence and that under those circumstances no grounds were made out for interference with the earlier order dismissing the revision petition. Narayana Menon moved the Supreme Court by way of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16688-89/93 questioning the orders of this Court dated 30-7-1993 and 24-9-1993 in C. R. P. No. 2427 of 1993 and Review C. M. P. No. 13616 of 1993 respectively and the same were dismissed on 26-11-1993 staying the execution and operation of the eviction decree for a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document