REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

IN

S.L.P.(C) NOS.27755-27759 OF 2010

M/s Atma Ram Builders P. Ltd. &

..Petitioner

versus

A.K.Tuli & Others

..Respondents

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court

against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14^th

September, 2010 by which the Delhi High Court had rejected

the second appeal filed by the tenant against the decree of

eviction.

By our order dated 06^th October, 2010, we dismissed the

special leave petitions by the following order:

“Taken on Board.

Heard.

We find no merit in the special leave petitions

and they are dismissed accordingly. However, we

grant six months' time from today to the

petitioner to vacate the premises in question on

furnishing usual undertaking before this Court

within six weeks from today.”

From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that

the tenant had to vacate the premises in question within six

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-2-

months' from the date of dismissal of the special leave

petitions and to furnish usual undertaking within six weeks

from that date. It is extremely unfortunate that neither an

undertaking was furnished nor did the tenant vacate the

premises in question on the expiry of six months, i.e., 06^th

April, 2011. Instead, frivolous objections were filed in the

execution proceedings, and our order was flouted. Hence,

these contempt petitions have been filed by the landlord.

It is deeply regrettable that in our country often

litigations between the landlord and tenant are fought up to

the stage of the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses in

this Court then he starts a second innings through someone

claiming to be a co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in some

other capacity and in the second round of litigation the

matter remains pending for years and the landlord cannot get

possession despite the order of this Court The time has

come that this malpractice must now be stopped effectively.

After our order dated 06^th October, 2010, the counsel

of the tenant should have advised the tenant to vacate the

premises in question like a gentleman before or on the

expiry of six months from 06.10.2010 but unfortunately they

advised the tenant to put up some other person claiming

independent right against the landlord as a sub-tenant and

start a fresh round of litigation to remain in possession.

In this manner, our order dated 06^th October, 2010 was

totally frustrated.

In these contempt proceedings, we had passed the

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-3-

following order on 27^th April, 2011:

“Very serious allegations have been made in these

contempt petitions.

By our Order dated

06.10.2010 we had dismissed the Special Leave

Petitions of M/s Udham Singh Jain Charitable

Trust-the tenant by giving it six months time

from that date to vacate the premises in

question on furnishing usual undertaking before

this Court within six weeks from that date.

Despite that Order, the petitioner in the

original Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759

of 2010 has not vacated the premises in question

nor did it file any undertaking before this

Court. Instead, to frustrate the Order of this

Court dated 06.10.2010 it got some persons to

file frivolous objections before the executing

court. One objector is none else than the son of

one of the trustees of the tenant-trust, another

objector is one of the trustees claiming to be

the sub-tenant.

In our opinion, such conduct is contemptuous and

is simply unacceptable. It prima facie seems to

us that the alleged contemnors are only creating

frivolous objections to start a second round of

litigation, and frustrate the Order of this Court

dated 06.10.2010. We ha