Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Smt. Komal Nagpal and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Mr.Kamal Nagpal and Ors. —Respondents
CCP No. 143/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2388/2006
Decided on 3.1.2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suman Kapoor and Ms. Ishah Shah, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. R.S. Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit K. Agarwal and Ms. Urvika Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4:Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
A person who has abetted/aided violation of any order with notice/knowledge of Order, he will be guilty of contempt.
Headnote:(i) Transfer of Property Rights, 1882—Sections 5, 6, 105 and 111—Tenancy rights—Import—Tenancy rights are property, capable of being transferred—Creation of tenancy in a property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property by transferee—Surrender of tenancy rights is a mode of determination of tenancy, implying that tenant is yielding his interest under tenancy which has effect of returning to lessor that right to enjoy such property and thereby letting him in—Surrender of tenancy in favour of landlord may not be transfer of property in strict sense of word transfer. (Para 11)
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39 Rule 2A—Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 2(b)—Injunction—Breach of—A person who is not a party to proceedings is not bound by any orders passed therein but if that person has abetted/aided violation of any order with notice/knowledge of Order, he will be guilty of contempt—Injunction order passed by High Court included injunction against surrender of tenancy by respondent to landlord—Even if there was any such mis-impression in his mind, respondent should have approached Court for a clarification, or, at least, taken petitioners into confidence before surrender of tenancy— Purpose of injunction was to preserve rights of petitioners till disposal of suit—Order of court has to be complied with in letter and in spirit—Injunction on dealing with property in any manner or disposal of property would encompass surrender of tenancy in its fold—Surrender of tenancy in such a clandestine manner, behind back of petitioners and in violation of Court’s order, leads to only one inference that it was indeed a deliberate act of respondent, done to defeat petitioners’ rights and to hamper administration of justice—Respondent held guilty of committing civil contempt. (Paras 12 to 15, 21 , 24 and 25)
Result: Contempt Petitions disposed of.
Vipin Sanghi, J.—The petitioners had instituted CS (OS) 2388/06 against three defendants, defendant no.l being respondent No.l herein, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of the premises known as Carlton cafe,1282-1286, Bada Bazar, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi, without the consent, knowledge & participation of the petitioners. The said suit is still pending adjudication before this Court.
2. The case of the petitioners is that premises known as Carlton cafe is a tenanted premise wherefrom the business under the name and style of M/s Carlton cafe was run by the father of respondent No.1 and his brother. Respondent No. 1 had inherited from his father, 25% interest in the tenancy rights of the said premises. It was agreed between petitioner No. 1 & respondent No.1, by way of a family settlement dated 18.11.94, that out of respondent no.1’s interest in the said premises, 10% would belong to petitioner No.2, 40% to petitioner no.3 and the remaining 50% to respondent no.1, and that in case of ‘sale’ of the said interest, the sale proceeds would be shared among petitioner No.2, petitioner No.3 and respondent No. 1 in the aforementioned proportion. In order to restrain defendants from resiling from the terms of the said settlement, CS (OS) 2388/06 was brought by the petitioners.
3. In I.A. No. 14402/06, filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1, & 2 r/w section 151 C.P.C., an ex parte injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners and against the defendants, vide order dated 8.1.2007, whereby defendants were restrained from dealing with the property in any manner without effectively associating petitioners in negotiation and disposal of the property. The operative part of the said order reads as follows:
“The interest of justice would be met at this stage, by directing the defendants not to deal with the aforesaid property in any manner without effectively associating the plaintiffs in the negotiations and disposal of the property. Ordered accordingly.”
4. Defendant No. 3 filed I.A. No. 3406/08 seeking vacation of the aforesaid injunction order. Since each defendant was in exclusive possession of clearly demarcated portions of the said premises in accordance with their respective shares in the tenancy rights and the claim of the petitioners, qua the settlement dated 18.11.94, was only against the 25% interest of defendant no.1/respondent No. 1 in the said premises, the stay against defendant No.2 & 3 was vacated but was confirmed against defendant No. l/respondent No. l till final disposal of the suit, vide order dated 26.3.10. The relevant extract from the said order reads as follows:
“….However, as regards the second and third defendants, there is no denial that they have exclusive interests in respect of 25% & 50% clearly demarcated portions of the property. Therefore, the injunction in respect of the suit property as far as they are concerned requires to be and is accordingly vacated.
In view of the above, the temporary injunction in respect of the first defendant’s 25% share concerning the demarcated portion in his possession shall continue and bind the parties the plaintiff and defendant No.1 till disposal of the suit.”
5. FAO 393/10 filed by respondent No. l, assailing the said Order dated 26.3.2010, was dismissed and the order dated 26.3.10 was upheld by the Division Bench. The breach of this aforesaid order by the respondents/contemnors has made the petitioners to invoke the Contempt Jurisdiction of this court by way of the present Contempt Petition.
6. Petitioners submit that, sometime in May 2012, the petitioners came to know about the registered sale deed dated 8.3.11, executed by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4, with respect to property bearing No. 1282 (forming part of property No. 1282-1286), Bada Bazar, Kashmere Gate. Petitioners were not certain whether respondent no. 1, against whom the injunction order was continuing, wa
