Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : NARASIMHAM, VAIDYA
K.CHALAPATI RAO - Appellant
Versus
B.N.REDDY - Respondent
Decided On : 10-20-67
CONTEMPT OF COURT - RENT CONTROLLER - JURISDICTION - ACT AND SECTION REFERRED - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 3 - RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 - RULES 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 - CONTEMPT - REFUSAL TO RECEIVE INTERIM ORDER - WORDS AMOUNTING TO CONTEMPT - FAILURE TO CARRY OUT ORDER - ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE JUDICIAL OFFICER - LIABILITY OF POLICE OFFICER. HELD: (1) THE RENT CONTROLLER IS A COURT SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURT WITHIN THE TERMS OF SECTION 3 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. (2) MERE REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE ORDER MADE BY A COMPETENT COURT AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT. (3) THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO RECEIVE THE INTERIM ORDER MADE BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER. (4) THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS NOT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER. (5) NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT AGAINST THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER, A TENANT, FILED A PETITION UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1952 AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR REFUSING TO RECEIVE AN INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, FOR USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE SCANDALIZING AND UNDERMINING THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT, FOR TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE JUDGE IN A PENDING CASE, FOR INFLUENCING THE POLICE OFFICERS FROM CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRIES OF VARIOUS OFFENCES COMPLAINED OF AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2, AND FOR INTERFERING WITH THE DUE COURSE AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE RENT CONTROLLER IS A COURT SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURT WITHIN THE TERMS OF SECTION 3 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT MERE REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE ORDER MADE BY A COMPETENT COURT AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT. THE COURT FOUND THAT THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO RECEIVE THE INTERIM ORDER MADE BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER. HOWEVER, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS NOT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT AGAINST THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE RENT CONTROLLER IS A COURT SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURT WITHIN THE TERMS OF SECTION 3 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 2. WHETHER MERE REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE ORDER MADE BY A COMPETENT COURT AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT. 3. WHETHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO RECEIVE THE INTERIM ORDER MADE BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER. 4. WHETHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER. 5. WHETHER ANY CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT AGAINST THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE RENT CONTROLLER IS A COURT SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURT WITHIN THE TERMS OF SECTION 3 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. THIS IS BECAUSE THE RENT CONTROLLER HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE CASES OF EVICTION AND RESTORATION OF AMENITIES TO THE TENANTS. HE IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF LAW IF THEY ARISE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM. HE HAS POWER TO SUMMON ANY PERSON, EXAMINE WITNESSES ON OATH AND COME TO A CONCLUSION ON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND THE ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED. THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL PRACTITIONERS. HE HAS GOT POWER TO EXECUTE ORDERS PASSED BY HIM. THE DECISION OF THE RENT CONTROLLER IS NOT BASED UPON A PRIVATE REFERENCE NOR HIS DECISION IS ARRIVED AT IN A SUMMARY MANNER. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE RENT CONTROLLER IS SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURT. 2. MERE REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE ORDER MADE BY A COMPETENT COURT AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT. THIS IS BECAUSE REFUSING TO ACCEPT AN INJUNCTION ORDER IS TO INTERFERE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY REFUSING TO ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT WHICH THE COURT'S ORDER CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH.
Final Decision: THE COURT SENTENCED THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO A FINE OF RS. 250/- AND DIRECTED HIM TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PETITIONER. THE COURT ALSO DIRECTED THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
( 1 ) THIS application has been filed under section 3 of the Contempt ofcourtl act 1952 against the three respondents. The petitioner is a tenant of 6-6-1967 situate in Hyderguda, Hyderabad which is also occupied by the owners According to the petitioner, the 1st respondcnt is the owner of the houss but the 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the 1st respondent, has of late, started asserting the ownership of the house. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in September 1958. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent in the month of November, 1966 asked the petitioner to vacate the premises. He followed it up by further requests; but when he found that the petitioner was not amenable, respondents 1 and 2 and their children started giving the, petitioner trouble. The petitioner in his affidavit has given particulars of such instances from 24-3-1967 to 4-4 67, with which we are not concerned. The petitioner s case is that with the intention of harassing the petitioner and forcing him to vacate the premises, respondents 1 and 2 closed the main gate of the premises and also stopped supply qf water and electricity. The petitioner therefore filed a petition No. 168/67 before the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on 5th April 1967 seeking for an order of restoration of amenities illegally cut off by the respondents. Along with the petition, he filed I. A 203/67 for an iterim injunction which was granted on the very same day. The injunction order runs as follows:"". . . . . . . . I am satisfied that the respondents have unjustifiably denied the amenity of the entrance through the main gate and passage. The respondent is directed to immediately restore the amenity of passage through the main gate and allow the petitioner s members of the family and the servants and the people who come to the petitioner s house. Call for compliance on 7-4-1967. "the petitioner further alleges that the respondents 1 and 2 having heard about the petition filed by him before the Rent Controller tried their best to forcibly evict the petitioner s family from the premises in his absence: When the petitioner returned from the Court on 5th April 1967 at about 6 p. m he found that the gates were locked and hia request to open the same proved futile. He had therefore to jump the gate and was ridiculed by the members of the respondents family. The petitioner moved again an urgent application on the morning of 6-4-67 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller seeking for an interim direction against the respondents to restore the electric, city and water supply. When this application was moved, the Additional rent Controller stated that he had realised at the time of signing the warrants that the respondents were very well known to him and their son-in-law is a good friend of his and for that reason he made a request to the Principal Rent controller to take back the main case as well as the I. A. on his file. The additional Rent Controller therefore advised the petitioner s counsel to present the second application before the Principal Rent Controller and obtain appropriate orders. Accordingly the petitioner s counsel presented the second petition before the Principal Rent Controller. In the meantime the petitioner took the Bailiff, process server and the Court peon to the respondents house to serve the order of interim direction in I A. 203/67. He identified respondents 1 and 2 to the Bailiff and the process server. The Bailiff and the Process server told respondents 1 and 2 that they have come from the Office of the Rest controller to serve the order of the Court directing the respondentd to open the gates and restore the passage. The petitioner s allegation is that:"the respondents were enraged on hearing those words and behaved in a high-handed manner using abusive language scandalizing and undermining the dignity of the Court and the Judge into contempt by uttering the following words : this is my house. The Rent Controller has no a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
