The court clarified that any written statement or communication that tends to bring the courts into disrepute or undermine the judicial system constitutes contempt of court, and that the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

( 1 ) RENT Control Appeal No. 772 of 1966 filed by Ram Dass P. Chugani was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, on 24th November, 1966. The Tribunal received a letter dated 29th November, 1966, from Shri Chugani on 5th December, 1966, by registered post. The said letter has been admitted by Shri Chugani. The main grievance made by Shri Chugani in the said letter against the Tribunal is about his not having been properly heard. On the basis of that letter I would have been disinclined to take action for contempt and Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the State, also agreed that there was nothing very objectionable in the said letter. It appears from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 8th February, 1967, that the Tribunal considered that the writing of that letter as an indiscreet act. It was indiscreet in the sense that no person is entitled to enter into private correspondence with a Judge about any cause or matter. Anyhow, as the Tribunal says, it directed that no action be taken on the said letter. Another Rent Control Appeal, being No. 239 of 1966, filed by Shri Chugani, was also pending before the same Tribunal and had been fixed for hearing on December 16,1966. The Tribunal says in the order dated 8th February, 1967, that in this appeal also questions of law and act similar to the questions arising in Appeal No. 772 of 1966 were involved. The Tribunal records that it then appeared that the earlier letter dated 29th November 1966, had been written by Shri Chugani in an attempt to influence the course of justice and the decision of Appeal No. 239 of 1966. The Tribunal, therefore, ordered on 16th December, 1966, that the file of Appeal No. 772 of 1966 should be put up before it on 20th January, 1967. On 21st December, 1966, the Tribunal received another registered letter. When Appeal No. 239 of 1966 came up for hearing on 20th January, 1967, Shri Chugani was asked whether he had been writing the said letters and he replied in the affirmative. Appeal No. 239 of 1966 was, however, adjourned to 8th February, 1967, for summoning of the records of Appeal No. 772 of 1966. On February, 2, 1967, a third Rent Control Appeal No. 1138 of 1966 filed by Shri Chugani and involving similar questions of fact and law came up for hearing before the Tribunal and was also ordered to be heard on 8th February, 1967. Shri Chugani again sent a latter to the Tribunal under a registered cover which was received on 6-2-1967, and it was then that the Tribunal issued a notice to Shri Chugani lo show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court. After hearing Shri Chugani the Tribunal recorded an order on 20th February, 1967, forwarding the papers to this Court for taking action under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the Tribunal the written-statement filed by Shri Chugani in reply to the show-cause notice aggravated the offence. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly refer to the reply.

( 3 ) PARAGRAPHS 7 and 9 of the said reply have been underlined by Mr. Misra as constituting serious contempt of Court. The said paragraphs read-

"7. Sir, this is so far as my eviction proceedings are concerned. But Sir, as for other matters, my experience of court affairs in India for the past 20 years, is still worse. "

"9. Sir, instead of making efforts to find faults with me, kindly try to find whether by refusing to hear my plea in spite of my best efforts in court , the Courts had adopted an "abnormal course of justice, or a normal one. "

( 4 ) THE only letter available on this record is Exhibit C-1 dated 29th November, 1966, and, as I have said earlier, the same calls for no punishment but only condemnation for entering into private communication with a Judge. The reply to the show-cause notice, however, clearly constitutes contempt of Court. It tends to bring the Courts generally into disrepute and to shatter the confidence of the people in the administration of just