Statements that are intended to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice are contemptuous.

( 1 ) THESE two Criminal Contempt Cases against respondent, Dr. A. Gopal Menon are being taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) IN Contempt Case No. 334 of 1996, this Court has initiated suo motu proceedings for contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, (70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). These proceedings were initiated on basis of an alleged grievance representation sent by respondent to the hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court. The background needs to be stated in brief only.

( 3 ) THE respondent sent a Grievance Petition dated 30th August, 1995 to the hon ble Chief Justice of this Court stating thus:"the adverse party in Crl. P. 1960/94 filed by Sri R. Subash Reddy, Lawyer suspiciously filed forged sale deed and fictitious documents, and exercised considerable influence on Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, who presided over the matter became a puppet in the hands of Sri R. Subash Reddy, advocate, overlooked the material evidence quashed the trial proceedings in C. C. 2173 and 2174 of 1994 pending before VI Metropolitan magistrate. On my representation, your Lordship was kind enough to post my matter of Review Petition 1960 of 1994 before another Judge, Justice Ramesh madhav Bapat, who was again influenced by Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, and sri R. Subhash Reddy, Advocate, who insulted and humiliated me appearing party-in-person in S. R. 5830/95 in Crl. P. 1960/94 and overlooked my submission and dismissed my valuable rights in Review petition. Thus both Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao and Justice Ramesh Madhav Bapat came under the direct influence of Sri R. Subhash Reddy Advocate notorious manipulator denied Justice in my matter and thus it is a prima facie abuse of process of Court established here beyond doubt. Now I have filed a Crl. Misc. Petition in C. C. 676 of 1994 u/s. 195 and 340 cr. P. C. It is registered as USR 1792/95 in C. C. 676/94 posted before a division Bench Justice Venkatram Peddy and Justice Bapat. There is a great danger, justice will be denied by Sri Ramesh Madhav Bapat sitting with Justice Venkatramreddyhighlyprejudiced. Acopy of Crl. M. P. (USR 1792/951 filed herewith for perusal. "

( 4 ) ON receipt of this Grievance Petition the Hon ble the Chief Justice directed the petition to be posted before the Bench which was already hearing a Criminal contempt Case against the respondent. The said Contempt Case was 676 of 1994. That is how the matter came up before the Bench which was dealing with c. C. No. 676 of 1994.

( 5 ) CONTEMPT Case No. 335 of 1996 is outcome of respondent having filed a counter in the Contempt Case No. 676 of 1994 which was pending before the bench. The background of this case may be stated.

( 6 ) ONE Mohd. Mumtaz Taher Khan (hereinafter referred to as the landlord ) sought eviction of A. Narayana Menon from certain premises situated in vidyanagar area of Hyderabad under the provisions of Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (l) (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for short the Rent Act ) by instituting an Eviction Petition r. C. 167 of 1988 before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The said proceedings were initiated on the ground that the landlord required the premises bona fide for personal occupation and also on the ground that there was wilful default in payment of rent committed by A. Narayana Menon. The landlord had averred in the said petition that the previous owner Mohd. Salauddin sold the suit premises by a registered sale deed to the landlord on 24-10-1987. The vendor had attorned the tenancy of Narayana Menon in favour of the landlord by letter dated 24-10-1987 addressed to Narayana Menon. Narayana Menon was directed to pay rents to the landlord from 1-11-1987 by the vendor. The Rent Controller by his order dated 24-2-1992 passed an order of eviction on the sole ground that the requirement of the landlord of the premises for bona fide occupation was genuine. An appeal was pr