D. M. Belgamvala Applicant
Vs M/s Tamil Nadu Real Estates (P) Ltd.
O R D E R
This is a typical
case of a litigant trying to take this Court for a ride. In this case, the landlord
had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant which had been decreed
by the courts below, including the High Court. The eviction was granted on the
ground that the building in question is more than 100 years old and needed
demolition and fresh construction. The Special Leave Petition (C)No. 13704 of
2010 filed by the petitioner against the order of the High Court was dismissed
by this Court by order dated 14.05.2010 and the petitioner (tenant) was granted
six months time from 14.05.2010 to vacate the premises in question subject to
filing usual undertaking before this Court. The petitioner had furnished the
undertaking to vacate the premises in question as directed by this Court. Despite
this undertaking, the petitioner has not vacated, and instead he has filed this
application on12.11.2010 praying for a direction that the petitioner need not
vacate the suit premises till the final orders passed in the Review Petition or
in the alternative grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the suit
premises. In our opinion, this application is a sheer abuse of the process of
the court.
Along with the
application an order dated 18.06.2010of the Commissioner, Corporation of
Chennai has been filed purporting to revoke the permission to demolish the property
in question. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner, Corporation of
Chennai is hand-in-glove with the petitioner and it is for this reason that he
has passed this collusive and contemptuous order dated18.06.2010 merely to get over
our order dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.2010. Issue contempt
of court notice to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai as well as to the
petitioner in this case to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt
of court for trying to take this Court for a ride and set at naught our order
dated 14.5.2010. We further direct that the petitioner be evicted from the
premises in question forthwith by using police force -3-ignoring the order of stay
of eviction which we are informed has been passed by the High Court. If the petitioner
or anyone tries to obstruct this order, he should know now that he will
definitely be sent to jail. There is a limit of tolerance by this Court and the
petitioner has crossed that limit. We are informed that the petitioner had,
long after we dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.2010, approached
the Madras High Court and obtained a stay of eviction.
We are surprised that
the Madras High Court has flouted the order of this Court dismissing the Special
Leave Petition on 14.05.2010. This was not expected of the Madras High Court. Judicial
discipline requires that the High Courts should not try to override orders
passed by this Court. Such defiant attitude of the High Courts will not be
tolerated by this Court. With these observations, the interlocutory application
is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the Madras
High Court who will place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court. The
Registrar General will send a report to this Court mentioning how and why a
stay order was granted by the High Court despite our order dated14.05.2010. -4-Contempt
Petition No. 289 of 2010 in Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 13704/2010 Contempt
Petition is taken on board. We are informed that this contempt petition in the Special
Leave Petition (C.) No. 13704/2010 has been filed by the respondent herein. The
order passed in the interlocutory application above will also govern this contempt
petition. Issue notice. List the contempt petition on 12.01.2011.
............................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
............................J.
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW
DELHI;
NOVEMBER
24, 2010
Back
