Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner firm concerning a property in Narnaul under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The respondents obtained a decree of eviction, which was upheld by the High Court. The petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on August 24, 1987, with a direction that the eviction order would not be executed for six months if the petitioner filed a usual undertaking. However, the petitioner failed to file the undertaking and instead, the sons of one of the partners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the eviction. The Senior Subordinate Judge granted a temporary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs claimed a right of tenancy independently. The respondents then filed a contempt petition against the petitioner firm for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had misled the court by not filing the undertaking and failing to vacate the premises. The court held that the order must be implemented and directed the Senior Sub-Judge to ensure delivery of possession, emphasizing that the conduct of the firm was a calculated attempt to frustrate the court's order. The court also ruled that the contempt application was within the limitation period and that failure to give possession constituted a continuing wrong. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,500 to the applicants. The court's decision reinforced the importance of compliance with court orders and the consequences of non-compliance.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Non-compliance with Court Order - Clear non-compliance established - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(b) - The petitioner firm failed to file an undertaking as directed by the court, leading to a situation where the eviction order was frustrated. The court emphasized the need for compliance with its orders and directed the delivery of possession. Held that the conduct of the firm amounted to a calculated attempt to mislead the court (Paras 227-230).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of sections 2(b) & 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were attracted due to non-compliance with the court's order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul to deliver vacant possession of the shop situated at Sabji Mandi, Narnaul, if necessary with police assistance. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,500 to the applicants. The court emphasized the need for compliance with its orders and the consequences of non-compliance.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Eviction
- Undertaking
- Compliance
- Continuing Wrong
