Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1189

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Kumar Jain, Meena V.Gomber, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar Malpani - Appellant
Versus
Ummed Singh Sushila Devi Memorial Trust, Jaipur & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Speial Appeal (Writ) No. 377 of 2013 In S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 61 of 2013 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 2008 With D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 61 of 2013 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 2008.
Decided On : 3-05-2013

For the Appellant:S. Kasliwal, Senior Counsel assisted by R.N. Vijay and Suruchi Kasliwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:Anil Upman, Advocate.

A court order must be obeyed, and a party who disobeys a court order may be held in contempt of court.

Headnote:
EVICTION - RENTED PREMISE - EXTENSION OF TIME - CONTEMPT OF COURT - [ORDER 39 RULE 2A CPC] - The court held that the orders of the Single Bench extending the time to vacate the rented premise were contrary to the directions of the Division Bench and set them aside. The court also directed the Executing Court to execute the decree of possession within a week and send a compliance report to the court. The court further held that any order passed by any Court, except the Division Bench of this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court, will not come in the way of the Executing Court, while making compliance of this order.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant/landlord filed an application for grant of decree of eviction as well as recovery of amount before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, which was allowed in part. The tenant preferred an appeal against the order of eviction, whereas the landlord preferred an appeal for granting decree of recovery of amount in dispute also. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dismissed the appeal of tenant and affirmed the findings of the Rent Tribunal in respect of eviction matter. The landlord and tenant entered into a compromise and an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording the compromise was filed before the Single Bench. As per terms of the compromise, the tenant was required to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premise on or before 28.02.2013. The tenant did not handover the possession of the rented premise on or before 28.02.2013 and moved an application before the Single Bench for extension of time to vacate the rented premise.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the orders of the Single Bench extending the time to vacate the rented premise were contrary to the directions of the Division Bench and set them aside. The court also directed the Executing Court to execute the decree of possession within a week and send a compliance report to the court. The court further held that any order passed by any Court, except the Division Bench of this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court, will not come in the way of the Executing Court, while making compliance of this order.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of the Single Bench extending the time to vacate the rented premise were contrary to the directions of the Division Bench? 2. Whether the Executing Court should execute the decree of possession within a week and send a compliance report to the court? 3. Whether any order passed by any Court, except the Division Bench of this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court, will come in the way of the Executing Court, while making compliance of this order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the orders of the Single Bench extending the time to vacate the rented premise were contrary to the directions of the Division Bench because the Division Bench had specifically directed that "no further extension shall be granted". 2. The court directed the Executing Court to execute the decree of possession within a week and send a compliance report to the court because the tenant had failed to comply with the terms of the compromise and had not handed over the possession of the rented premise to the landlord. 3. The court held that any order passed by any Court, except the Division Bench of this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court, will not come in the way of the Executing Court, while making compliance of this order because the Division Bench had specifically directed that "no further extension shall be granted" and the tenant had failed to comply with the terms of the compromise.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Single Bench extending the time to vacate the rented premise, dismissed the tenant's application for extension of time to vacate the rented premise, and directed the Executing Court to execute the decree of possession within a week and send a compliance report to the court.

JUDGMENT

1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the orders of the Single Bench dated 01.03.2013, 08.03.2013 and 18.03.2013, whereby time to vacate the rented premise, has been extended, despite specific directions of the Division Bench, not to extend the time to vacate the rented premise.

3. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the impugned orders of the Single Bench as well as other documents placed on record, it appears that appellant/landlord/applicant, Ramesh Kumar Malpani filed an application for grant of decree of eviction as well as recovery of amount before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, which was allowed in part vide order dated 04.10.2007 and a decree of eviction was passed in favour of landlord, however, decree in respect of recovery of amount was not passed. Therefore, the landlord and tenant, both, preferred two appeals before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The tenant preferred an appeal against the order of eviction, whereas the landlord preferred an appeal for granting decree of recovery of amount in dispute also. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 13.08.2008, dismissed the appeal of tenant and affirmed the findings of the Rent Tribunal in respect of eviction matter. So far as appeal filed by the landlord is concerned, the same was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Rent Tribunal for fresh decision on an issue as to whether the landlord is entitled to get a decree of arrears of rent amount of Rs. 1,25,700/-.

4. Being aggrieved with the order of the Rent Appellate Tribunal, the tenant/respondent No.1 filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7976/2008. During pendency of the writ petition, the parties entered into a compromise and an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording the compromise was filed before the Single Bench. As per terms of the compromise, the tenant was required to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premise on or before 28.02.2013. It was also agreed upon between the parties that the tenant will pay the amount of rent till the date of eviction of the premise. The details of monthly cheques of the rent amount, were mentioned in para-(iii) of the compromise. It was also mentioned that in case, there is any default in any of the terms and conditions, then it will be open for the landlord to get the order passed by the Rent Tribunal executed and to get the possession of the rented premise.

5. It appears that cheques of rent given by the tenant, as per terms of compromise, were dishonoured. Since there was a breach of the terms of compromise, therefore, the landlord filed an application before the Rent Tribunal for execution of decree. The Executing Court passed an order of possession of the rented premise to landlord. Thereafter, the tenant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15012/2012 before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.09.2012. Being aggrieved with the same, the tenant again preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1269/2012, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 03.10.2012. However, default in payment of rent was condoned by the Division Bench and time to vacate the premise was granted up to 28.02.2013, which was granted by way of compromise. The order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Division Bench, is reproduced as under:-

"Though, we find no fault with the order passed by the Single Bench on 27.9.2012, however, as per agreement of the learned counsel, we direct that default is condoned and in case, the appellant commits any default in future, the decree shall be executed without further reference to the court. The extension of period granted to vacate the premises shall stand lapsed and decree shall be executable forthwith without further reference to the court & no further extension shall be granted.

Let fresh undertaking be furnished by the appellant within a period of ten days from today

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1189

A court order must be obeyed, and a party who disobeys a court order may be held in contempt of court.

Cases Referred (5)

Login now and unlock premium legal research