SUPREME COURT HOLDS TENANT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT OWING TO WILFUL AND DELIBERATE NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDER OF EVICTION

Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 09-09-2024 in the matter of M/s Sitaram Enterprises Vs Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023 along with other connected matters and observed that owing to the wilful non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s Orders and directions by the Respondent-Tenant for vacation and handing over of Suit Premises to the Petitioner-Landlord, the Court held the Tenant guilty of Contempt of Court.

Facts

(1) In the present case, the Petitioner- M/s Sitaram Enterprises (Landlord) filed Rent and Eviction Suits bearing R.A.E. & R. Suit Nos.43/137 and 111/300 of 2003 before Ld. Court of Small Causes at Bombay (Bandra Branch) (Trial Court) against the Respondent- Prithviraj Vardichand Jain (Tenant) from Shop No. 3 and Room No. 4 of the Landlord’s properties, namely, being Municipal House Nos. 427, 430 and 431 C.T.S. Nos. 38, 38/1 to 13 and T.P.S. Plot No.23 (part) of Village Kanhari, Taluka Borivali B.S.D. situated at Corner of 9 Kasturba Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400066 (Premises) on the ground of non-payment of rent and arrears by the Tenant. The Trial Court decreed the Suits, vide Order dated 21-08-2015.

(2) Aggrieved by the Trial Court Order dated 21-08-2015, the Respondent-Tenant filed Appeals No. 39 and 40 of 2015 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bandra, Mumbai (Appellate Court). The Appellate Court dismissed the said Appeals, vide Order dated 25-08-2022.

(3) Aggrieved by the Appellate Court Order dated 25-08-2022, the Respondent-Tenant filed Civil Revision Applications No. 453 of 2022 and 454 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, which were dismissed, vide Order dated 12-10-2022.

(4) Thereafter, the Respondent-Tenant filed Review Petitions No. 9 and 10 of 2022 before the High Court, which were also dismissed, vide Order dated 07-12-2022.

(5) Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 07-12-2022, the Respondent-Tenant filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12081-12082 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Petitions were dismissed by the Apex Court, vide Order dated 06-06-2023 and the Bench directed the Respondent-Tenant to vacate the tenanted Premises within nine months and to file an undertaking and affidavit in that regard. Further, he was also directed to pay the charges till the time of vacation of Premises, for use and occupation equivalent to the monthly rent. The said Order specifically mentioned that breach of undertaking might give rise to contempt proceedings.

(6) However, the Respondent-Tenant, instead of furnishing the undertaking, filed Review Petitions bearing R.P. Diary No. 26984 of 2023 before the Supreme Court. The said Petitions were dismissed by the Apex Court, vide Order dated 07-02-2024.

(7) Thereafter, the Respondent-Tenant filed an Application seeking extension of time to vacate the Premises along with an Undertaking / Affidavit dated 22-02-2024, which were registered as M.A. Nos. 405-406 of 2024 and M.A. Nos. 407-408 of 2024 and the same were dismissed, vide Order dated 04-03-2024. The Supreme Court did not allow extension of time and also noted that the nine months’ time granted earlier was about to expire on 06-03-2024.

(8) Aggrieved, the Petitioner issued Notice to the Respondent to handover physical possession of the Premises on 06-03-2024 by 11 am, but the latter failed to do so.

Supreme Court Observations

Thus, aggrieved by the Respondent’s non-compliance of the Supreme Court Order dated 06-06-2023, the Petitioner-Landlord filed Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023 before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court, vide Order dated 09-09-2024, made the following observations:

(i) That the Respondent always acted with an intention to prolong the litigation; deliberately and wilfully disobeyed Court’s orders and despite specific instructions, failed to appear in person before the Court. Hence, the Bench issued Bailable Warrant to secure his attendance for his presence on the next date i.e. 12.08.2024.

(ii) But the Respondent still failed to appear in person, therefore, the Bench issued Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest on 12-08-2024 for securing his presence on the next date i.e. 02-09-2024 and for compliance of Court’s Order to vacate the Suit Premises.

(iii) However, the said Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest could not be served upon the Respondent, as his wife and son informed the Police that he left for Delhi to meet his new Lawyer in connection with the said case.

(iv) Further, the Respondent’s son submitted before the Court that his father was bed-ridden, thus, he cannot come to Court. However, he did not file any Application or proof in this regard. Furthermore, it was incorrectly stated earlier that the Respondent visited Delhi to meet his new Lawyer, when in fact, it was his son who had visited Delhi. Thus, the Police failed to verify the facts and merely returned the Warrant to the Registry.

(v) Hence, the Bench issued fresh Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest against the Respondent- Contemnor with the following directions:

In view of the above and for the reasons recorded, fresh non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent/contemnor for securing his physical presence in Court, clearly specifying that non execution of warrant may cause appearance of Assistant Commissioner as well as the Inspector of the police of the area.

(vi) Finally, on 09-09-2024, the Respondent was produced in custody of the Mumbai Police. The Respondent was a senior citizen and claimed to be poor and hence, sought for one month time to vacate the Premises. However, based on the past conduct and wilful non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s Orders and aforementioned directions by the Respondent, the Apex Court rejected the Respondent’s prayer for extension of time.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the Bench held the Respondent guilty for non-compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court. But in the interest of justice, the Court granted one week’s time to the Respondent to vacate the Premises and handover physical possession to the Petitioner, failing which, the Order dated 06-06-2023 would be complied with by taking forceful possession from him. For the said purpose, the Ld. Magistrate may issue a warrant of possession and with the help of the Police and in the presence of a Court Commissioner, the process of vacation and handing over of Premises would be completed. As a result, the Contempt Petitions were accordingly disposed off.

 

Harini Daliparthy

Lead Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer