The judgment establishes the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial institutions and the inherent power of the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against those who interfere with the administration of justice.

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.J.

The appellant in Cont. A. No. 5/2000 is the son of the appellant in Cont. A. No. 4/2000. These two appellants have been found guilty by a learned single Judge in suo motu contempt application No. 1/2000 and they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.

2. The facts in short are as follows :- One V. G. Loganathan was in occupation of a portion of the building owned by the appellant in Cont. A. No. 4/2000 as a tenant. The premises was bearing the old Door No. 48 and new Door No. 44 Nethaji Street, Ponniammanmedu, Chennai-110 and he was conducting a rice mill. He was paying a rent of Rs. 7000/- per month. The said tenant filed O.S., No. 1421/97 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur alleging that he had already surrendered possession of a portion of the building used for rice mill to the appellant Balakrishnan and is in possession of only a portion of the building and the appellant Balakrishnan had been trying to evict the plaintiff therein from that portion of the house occupied by him.

3. The plaintiff Loganathan filed an application to transfer the suit to City Civil Court alleging that the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur had been compelling him to enter into a compromise with the appellant Balakrishnan. The appellant Balakrishnan received notice in the transfer application as well as in the suit. Pursuant to the endorsement made on the transfer petition, the suit was transferred to the file of city Civil Court, Madras as per the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 10-3-1999. The said suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 4302/99 on the file of city civil Court, Madras. In that suit, the plaintiff Loganathan moved an application for injunction and the appellant Balakrishnan filed a counter affidavit wherein he admitted and stated as follows :-

I submit that a rice mill with the office attached to it at Old No. 48, New No. 44 Nethaji Street, Ponniammanmedu, Kanakkan Chatram, Chennai-110 was initially let out to one Mr. P. Mani in the year 1989. The petitioner was an employee under P. Mani. The licence granted to P. Mani was for only one year and for the purpose of removing the husk from the paddy and to polish the rice. The petitioner herein was granted such a licence after his employer Mani left the suit premises. Along with the rice mill, there is an office building which is part and parcel of the rice mill. The petitioner herein handed over, possession of the rice mill alone on 7-7-1997 but has not surrendered the office building which is part and parcel of the rice mill. The rice mill could not be let out to any third party therefore the petitioner is bound to pay Rs. 7000/- per month from July, 1997 onwards. The rent due from the petitioner up to February, 1998 is Rs. 56,000/-. The petitioner is misusing the office building which is the suit property for his residential purposes. The amount of Rs. 500/- by way of D.D. sent by the petitioner was adjusted towards the arrears of rent due from the petitioner. The petitioner has suppressed all the material facts."

4. The appellant Balakrishnan had also filed a written statement and therein also he admitted possession of the portion of the house by the said Loganathan.

5. Thereafter, the appellant Balakrishnan filed O.S. No. 140/99 before the District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur. His son Murugesan, appellant in Cont. A No. 5/2000, was arrayed as the first defendant. In the said suit O.S. No. 140/99 the appellant Balakrishnan prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant, his men and agents or any other person including V. G. Loganathan and his family members to leave the suit premises morefully described thereunder by removing all movables including the household articles lying therein and thereby surrender vacant suit premises to the plaintiff. There applications were filed by the appellant Balakrishnan along with the suit, one for man