POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMT OF COURTORDER IS VITAL TO SAFEGUARD THE AUTHORITY & EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM: SUPREME COURT STATED
Category: Public & Regulatory
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The landlord filed suits seeking eviction of the tenant from specific properties in Mumbai due to bona fide need and non-payment of rent. The suits were decreed by the Trial Court and subsequent appeals and review petitions by the tenant were dismissed. The tenant then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Court, which were also dismissed. The tenant was granted nine months to vacate the premises but failed to furnish the required undertaking and filed review petitions, which were also dismissed. The tenant filed for an extension to vacate the premises but did not comply with the court's order. The landlord filed contempt petitions. Despite multiple court appearances, the tenant failed to file the required documents or comply with the court's orders. The tenant's new counsel cited hospitalization and pending petitions as reasons for non-compliance.
ISSUES OF THE CASE-
1. Whether the respondent/contemnor is purposefully not vacating the place, even after 9 months sufficient time was given by the court?
2. Whether the respondent/contemnor has complied with the orders of the Supreme Court to appear before it for the hearing, even after multiple Warrant application had been issued for undertaking the respondent into custody to present before the court?
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER-
**** No arguments/contentions of the petitioner is given in the order copy****
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-
The respondent submitted that he is a poor person with large family to support, and apologised for his conduct and later sought pardon. Meanwhile, he said that the Curative Petitions filed by him are still pending, and until those are decided, time may be granted. Then, he pleaded that, he has no other place to shift his large family and requested to grant him at least one month time to vacate the suit premises. His newly engaged counsel also argued in same line to grant time to hand over the possession of the subject property.
COURT ANALYSIS/ DECISION-
The Court analysed that the individual in question was given nine months to vacate the property, but failed to comply despite multiple court directives and warrants. He continued to litigate and seek extensions, and misled police officials when non-bailable warrants were issued. Despite being unable to explain his actions, he requested an extension to vacate the premises until a decision on the Curative Petition. The court found the contemnor's request for a month's extension to vacate the premises unreasonable and a deliberate attempt to avoid complying with the court's orders. Despite the passage of time, the possession of the premises has not been handed over to the landlord as directed by the court.
The Court decided that it is a case in which the contemnor has deliberately and willfully not complied the order of this Court dated 6.6.2023 and flouted the same. Therefore, we are constrained to hold him guilty for non- compliance of the directions of this Court. We also find no substance in the explanation furnished by him. Thus, the respondent is held guilty of contempt of power of court till the time court is seated, considering his health concerns as well as an old- aged person, and is directed to vacate the said property in the suit within 7 days, if not complied with the order of the Court, the Petitioner can forcefully take the possession of the property in his control, all the expenses has to be borne by the respondent.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ALOK CHHAPARWAL
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
