Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(P&H) 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Som Parkash Rishi – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Satish Kumar and others – Respondents
COCP No.977 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajinder Paul & Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction – Non-compliance of undertaking for vacating the premises and creating hurdle in process of law – Amounts to contempt – Tenant imprisoned for 3 months.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.2(b) – Eviction – Non-Compliance of undertaking – Judgment debtor claiming permissive possession of other two rooms located on same floor other than 'demised premises' so that they may not be prosecuted for the forcible occupation or can claim injunction on the basis of unauthorized possession against the true owner which also is not permissible – Judgment debtor held guilty of committing contempt of process of court – Imprisoned for three months and also directed to vacate portion – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, against the respondents for seeking their eviction from the demised premises comprises of one big hall, one kitchen, latrine and bathroom constructed on the first floor of Godown/SCF No.154, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 20.01.2004. However, appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh on 20.09.2006 and the respondents were ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The respondents filed Civil Revision No.5872 of 2006, which was dismissed on 06.04.2015 and the Review Application bearing RA No.CR-97-CII of 2015 was also dismissed on 30.04.2015. The petition filed by the respondents before the Apex Court bearing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14589- 14590 of 2015 was dismissed on 15.05.2015 and time was granted to the respondents till 31.03.2016 to vacate the demised premises and to hand over peaceful possession to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

“(1) The petitioners file an undertaking on usual terms in this court within six weeks from today.

(2) The petitioners pay the entire arrears of rent for use and occupation within six weeks.

(3) The petitioners pay compensation for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.7000/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.05.2015 onward till the date of actual vacation of the premises. Future deposits shall be made by the 10th of every succeeding calendar month.

Breach of any one of the above conditions shall render the decree executable forthwith against the petitioner.”

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Supreme Court, respondent No.1-Satish Kumar filed his affidavit/undertaking before the Supreme Court on 04.06.2015 to comply with the aforesaid conditions.

3. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Executing Court for execution of the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Supreme Court, in which the following order was passed on 30.06.2016 by the Executing Court:-

“Reply on behalf of the decree holder to the application filed by the Judgment Debtor filed. Heard. Considering the rival assertions with regard to the fact if the demised property has been vacated by the JD or not. It will be appropriate to seek report from a bailiff attached to the court of Learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.), Chandigarh, whether the demised property stands vacated or warrant of possession required to be issued for delivery of possession to the DH.

Copy of order be forwarded to the office of Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Chandigarh with the request to direct Civil Nazir attached to the office of Learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.), Chandigarh, to depute a bailiff and seek a report in regard to the aforesaid and file the report positively before the court at 10:00 AM on 31.03.2016. Bailiff is directed to identify the demised property as per eviction order. Copy of eviction order wherein description of demised property is given, be attached with the copy of order.”

4. Pursuant thereto, the bailiff produced its report, which is as under:-

“Sir, it is submitted that as per the eviction orders of the Hon'ble Court, copy attached, I reached at the demised property, description of the same is one big hall on front side and one kitchen on the 1st Floor, Godown No.154, Grain Market, Sector-26, Chandigarh. On the spot, I met J.D. Satish Kumar. He had put a lock on the said portion. When he was asked to open the lock of the said portion, he opened the lock. In this portion, he showed me one big hall on the front side and one kitchen on the 1st floor, Godown No.154, Grain Market, Sector-26, Chandigarh. The same was found vacant. There is no article of the JD in the same. After showing this portion, JD has again put his lock on the same. Hence, the report is submitted.

Sd/- Bailiff/30.03.2016

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2016 Supreme(P&H) 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHRakesh Kumar Jain, J.Som Parkash Rishi – PetitionerVersusShri Satish Kumar and others – RespondentsCOCP No.977 of 2016 (O&M)Decided On : 28-09-2016

IMPORTANT POINTEviction – Non-compliance of undertaking for vacating the premises and creating hurdle in process of law – Amounts to contempt – Tenant imprisoned for 3 months.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Som Parkash Rishi – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Satish Kumar and others – Respondents
COCP No.977 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-09-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction – Non-compliance of undertaking for vacating the premises and creating hurdle in process of law – Amounts to contempt – Tenant imprisoned for 3 months.