IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with court orders is essential, and disputes over related financial obligations do not exempt parties from contempt findings.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)

The 1st respondent herein, had filed W.P.No.18765 of 2021 with the complaint that the Municipal Corporation of Guntur had constructed and was running a Municipal High School in the land belonging to the 3rd respondent Satram, which was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the writ petition, without payment of any rent and that the said 3rd respondent- Satram was not taking any steps to evict the Municipal Corporation from the said land.

2. On 12.04.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of an interlocutory order, had directed the Municipal High School represented by the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation to pay an admitted amount of Rs.25,01,400/- to the 3rd respondent-Satram therein, within a period of four weeks, and also to pay the rent per month by calculating the rent at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. yard. It appears that the said order was amended by a separate order of the learned Single Judge, dated 30.04.2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022, to read as rent of Rs.2/- per sq. feet instead of Rs.2/- per sq. yard.

3. Contempt Case No.2120 of 2022 was filed, on the ground that the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022, had been violated. It is the admitted case, on all sides, that the Municipal Corporation paid an amount of Rs.25,01,400/- by way of cheque No.009490, dated 06.07.2022 and another sum of Rs.39,600/- by way of cheque No.009619 dated 17.09.2022 towards rent for the months from April 2020 to September 2022, calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. yard.

4. After such payment, the Convener of the Satram is said to have addressed a letter dated 20.09.2022 informing the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation that the rent for the period April 2020 onwards would have to be calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet and the balance amount payable was Rs.3,16,800/- for the period April 2020 to September, 2022.

5. After this demand and communications, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant herein, stating that the payment of Rs.25,01,400/- was in accordance with the orders of the Court dated 12.04.2022 and the subsequent amendment, dated 30.04.2022, changing the rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. feet was not part of the order dated 12.04.2022 and consequently, the said variation would not fall within the purview of the contempt case as the contempt case had been filed for violation of the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2022. The counter also stated that the rate of rent was something which has to be resolved between the Municipal Corporation and the Satram and necessary steps were being taken for that purpose and that there was no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the said contentions, and after hearing both sides, had held that the correction of rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. feet was actually a typographical error as the correspondence as well as the material before the Court clearly demonstrate that the rent was being sought at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet and not Rs.2/- per sq. yard. The learned Single Judge, after arriving at this finding also held that non-payment of rent for the subsequent months from April 2020 at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet amounts to violation of the orders of the Court and convicted the appellant herein under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The learned single Judge, after such conviction, sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present contempt appeal.

8. The primary grounds of appeal, raised by the appellant are that the 3rd respondent-Satram was due an amount of Rs.63,91,661/- as municipal tax to the Municipal Corporation and this was sought to be set off against the rent payable to the Satram and consequently, there would be no violation of the ord