The court cannot impose a timeline for compliance with prior orders in contempt proceedings if such a timeline was not specified in the original order.

ORDER :

Since the order under challenge in both the contempt petitions is the same, therefore, this Court Sr.No.03 proposes to pass a common order in both the contempt petitions.

2. The present contempt petitions have been preferred for enforcement of the order dated 19.03.2021 passed in LPA Nos. 236/2019 and 284/2019.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The contempt Petitioners are tenants of Respondent No. 2. The building which is occupied by the Petitioners has been declared unsafe by the Municipal Corporation under the relevant provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 2000. The Petitioners who were facing ouster from the property, approached this Court by way of OWP Nos. 494/2018 and 929/2018. The said writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners herein preferred the LPA Nos. 236/2019 and 284/2019 which were also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2021.However, while dismissing the LPA the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed certain directions in paragraph 23, which are reproduced below:

“We are, however, of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if, notwithstanding the dismissal of appeals, the interest of the appellants could be safeguarded. We, therefore, pass the following directions:

(i) The appellants, who have been ordered to vacate the shops under their tenancy shall be entitled to reoccupy the building once it is constructed by the landlord after demolition of the existing building under the orders of the Municipal Corporation;

(ii) It is made clear that any permission applied for by Respondent No. 5 for raising fresh construction on the site of the building to be demolished, shall be granted by the Municipal Corporation only if site plan makes a provision for re-erection of the shops demolished;

(iii) The Municipal Corporation shall obtain undertaking from Respondent No. 5 that he or his successor-in-interest would offer for renting out these shops to the appellants as and when constructed subject to re-fixation of fair rent under the provisions of Rent Control Legislation in force;

and (iv) On the appellants being put in possession of their respective shops, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the appellants and Respondent No. 5 shall revive and continue until determined in accordance with law”.

4. The directions hereinabove, do not give any specific timeline within which they have to be complied with. Therefore, the status quo continued for the Petitioners herein with the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over them and the occupied building not being demolished. Against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the LPAs, a Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. However, while dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court also observed that Respondent No. 5 in the SLP (Respondent No. 2 in the contempt petition) shall be bound by the directions given by the Division Bench in paragraph 23 of the aforementioned order. Thereafter, as nothing happened, Sat Pal Sharma-petitioner herein, preferred a review petition before the Division Bench, seeking review of the judgment dated 19.03.2021 on only one point that is the timeline being given by the High Court for execution of the directions in paragraph 23 of the principal order. The review petition was also dismissed. The effect of the dismissal of the review petition was that there was consideration by the Coordinate Bench as to whether a specific timeline should be mentioned for the parties to comply with the directions given in paragraph 23 of the judgment under review and the same was dismissed.

5. The dismissal of the review petition, therefore, concluded the controversy with regard to the timeline, where the Court was of the opinion that such timeline could not be fixed. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissing the review petition has not been challenged by way of SLP before the Supreme Court and therefore, the same