M/s Atma Ram Builders
P. Ltd. & Vs. A. K. Tuli & Others
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 14th 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 06th 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 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., 06th 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 06th 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 06th October, 2010 was totally frustrated. In these contempt proceedings,
we had passed the CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011 following order on 27th
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 have noted that the tenancy was for 10 years effective from 01.11.1982.
Hence, the respondents in these contempt petitions (petitioner in the original Special
Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of 2010 and the objectors) should have handed over
peaceful, vacant possession on 01.11.1992, but they have not done so till now. Issue
notice. Dasti in addition. List on 10th May, 2011 by which time counter affidavit
may be filed.
It is made clear that
the case will not be adjourned on that day. There are very serious allegations of
flouting the Order dated 06.10.2010 passed by this Court. We may be constrained
to pass harsher orders on that date if cause shown is not sufficient according
to us. The alleged contemnors shall remain present in the Court on 10th May,
2011.CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011 The petitioner in these contempt petitions
is allowed to implead Archna Sinha, Additional District Judge Central, Delhi. Issue
notice to her also. She is directed to remain present in the Court on 10th May,
2011 to explain to this Court how and why she had passed the order dated 23.04.2011
in total defiance of the Order passed by this Court on 06.10.2010.
She is also directed to
file a personal affidavit before the next date of hearing. She shall also show cause
why contempt proceedings be not taken against her and a recommendation be made by
this Court for her immediate suspension. Notice may be served dasti to Mr.
Ashwani Kumar, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner in the original Special
Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of 2010. Copy of this Order shall be given to
the alleged contemnors and Archna Sinha, Additional District Judge Central,
Delhi, forthwith. " Today, when the case was taken up for hearing at 11.25
a.m., senior counsels appeared on behalf of the alleged sub-tenants and stated that
their clients will vacate the premises.
Hence, we directed that
possession be handed over to the landlord by 12.30 p.m. today and we directed this
case to be put up again before us at 12.30 p.m. today. In this case, the order of
this Court dated 06th October, 2010 has been totally flouted. It appears that the
alleged sub-tenant in the execution proceedings raised an objection which was
rejected on 01st April, 2011 against which an appeal was filed to the
Additional District Judge Archana Sinha who by a detailed order dated 23rd April,
2011, has granted stay of the warrant of possession. CONTEMPT PETITION(C)
NOS.140-144/2011
It seems to us that
in this country certain members of the Subordinate Courts do not even care for
orders of this Court. When this Court passed an order dated 06th October, 2010 granting
six months' time to vacate, the contemnor Archana Sinha, Additional District Judge
had no business to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011 but instead she has stayed
the warrants of possession, meaning thereby that she has practically superseded
our order and overruled us. We are constrained to say that a certain section of
the subordinate judiciary in this country is bringing the whole judiciary of India
into disrepute by passing orders on extraneous considerations. We do not wish
to comment on the various allegations which are often made to us about what certain
members of the subordinate judiciary are doing, but we do want to say that
these kind of malpractices have to be totally weeded out. Such subordinate judiciary
Judges are bringing a bad name to the whole institution and must be thrown out
of the judiciary.
In this case, the contemnor
Archana Sinha had no business to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011 and it
is hereby quashed as totally void. We further direct the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
the Delhi High Court to enquire into the matter and take such disciplinary action
against Archana Sinha, Additional District Judge, as the High Court deems fit. Let
a copy of this order be sent forthwith to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the
Delhi High Court for appropriate orders on the CONTEMPT PETITION(C)
NOS.140-144/2011 administrative side against Archana Sinha. We are informed at
12.30 p.m. today that the possession of the property in dispute has now been delivered
to the landlord. In view of this, the contempt notice against the contemnors is
discharged.
Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned
counsel for the landlord/petitioner stated that the tenant has not paid electricity
and other dues which the tenant was liable to pay. For this separate proceedings
may be filed by the landlord, which will be decided by the competent court expeditiously.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the
High Courts to be placed before their respective Hon'ble the Chief Justices for
information and appropriate orders. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of.
............................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
............................J.
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW
DELHI;
MAY
10, 2011
Back
