Civil contempt is established when a party willfully disobeys a Court order, emphasizing the importance of compliance in maintaining judicial authority.

1. Both these appeals are preferred against the order dated 21-7-1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992. The LPA is preferred by the applicants in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992 whereas Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 is preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 therein.

2. The learned single Judge has held that the respondents have, with every knowledge, wantonly, deliberately and wilfully, flouted the order of this Court made in Application No. 4181 of 1991 and thereby they have committed civil contempt and consequently punished the Managing Director of the Company - first respondent by imposing a penalty of Rs.1,500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days. The applicants apart from praying for punishing the contemners have also prayed for stricking off the defence in CS No. 970/91 and further to direct them to surrender vacant possession of the property to the applicants by way of punishment. Learned Single Judge has rejected the other prayers made in the contempt application No. 596/92 by stating that the other reliefs claimed in the contempt application regarding striking off the defence etc., are not accepted. Therefore, the applicants in the contempt application have filed the Letters patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against that portion of the order of the learned single Judge by which he has refused to strike off the defence of the respondents in the contempt application who are the defendants in the suit CS No. 970/91 pending on the file of this Court; whereas the respondents in the contempt application have preferred Contempt Appeal No. 5/94 against that portion of the order of the learned single Judge by which they are found guilty of civil contempt and punished with imposition of fine. Therefore, we have heard both the appeals together.

3. The appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 5/94 who are the respondents in the LPA No. 172/93 have raised an objection as to the maintainability of the LPA. under Clause 15 of the Letters patent. If necessary, we will deal with this objection at the appropriate stage.
3.1. The facts, which have given rise to the application for contempt and which are either established beyond doubt or not disputed, are as follows : The appellants in the LPA are the owners of the schedule property, comprised in premises No. 15, Smith Road, Madras - 2 together with two rooms below the staircase and comprising three halls and one kitchen on the rear side measuring about 4400 sq. ft. excluding the 12' width common road on the Southern side and out house and open space on the western side. The abovesaid premises was leased out to the respondents in the LPA. The ground floor was separately leased out on 1-11-1989; whereas the first and the second floors were leased out under separate agreements of lease dated 9-11-1989 and 24-11-1989 respectively. The terms on which the ground floor was leased under a registered lease deed dated 1-11-1989 were that the respondents in the LPA should pay the appellants in the LPA towards rent a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month for the period from 1-10-1989 to 30-9-1990 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month for the period from 1-10-1990 to 30-9-1991. The terms on which the first and second floors were leased under the agreements dated 9-11-1989 and 24-11-1989 were that the respondents in the LPA should pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as rent for the first and a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month for the second floor of the premises till 30-9-1990 and if the respondents were to occupy the premises beyond 30-9-1990, the rent would be Rs.27,500/- per month for each floor upto 30-9-1991 and thereafter if the respondents continued to occupy beyon