Case Note & Summary
The present contempt proceeding arose from an eviction order obtained by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The original landlord, Prakash Lal Sharma, had filed an eviction petition in 1985 against the tenant Surjit Singh Arora for one room and a garage in House No. 1572, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh. After passing of the original landlord, his daughter Rita Markandey pursued the matter. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction, and the tenant's appeal and revision were dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's civil appeal on 05.10.1994, granting time till 31.03.1995 to vacate subject to filing a usual undertaking within four weeks. The tenant neither filed the undertaking nor vacated by the deadline. In May 1995, the landlord filed execution proceedings before the Rent Controller, and the tenant raised objections claiming occupation of additional portions beyond the suit premises. The landlord then filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court alleging wilful disobedience of the 1994 order and making false statements. The tenant initially pleaded that the garage had been vacated long back and that in absence of an undertaking he could not be held liable for contempt. Later, on 16.10.1995, the tenant claimed that possession was delivered on 14.10.1995 to the landlord's power of attorney, but the landlord denied this. The Rent Controller's report contradicted the tenant's claim and showed that even before the local commissioner, possession of only the garage was attempted and then locked again by the tenant. On this basis, the Supreme Court prima facie found that the tenant had made an incorrect statement and filed a false affidavit, and issued a rule for contempt and perjury. The tenant repeatedly absented himself from court, leading to issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants and forfeiture of surety bonds. The Court directed the Rent Controller to ensure delivery of vacant possession through police help if necessary. The Rent Controller reported that possession was delivered on 07.03.1996. On 12.03.1996, after the tenant was brought under arrest, the Court allowed his prayer to file affidavits and directed his release on bail; the text of the judgment ends before the final order on sentence or further directions.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Wilful Disobedience of Conditional Eviction Order - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13 - The Supreme Court, while dismissing tenant's civil appeal on 05.10.1994, granted time till 31.03.1995 to hand over vacant possession subject to filing usual undertaking within four weeks. Tenant neither filed undertaking nor delivered possession by deadline, and instead raised objections in execution. The Court prima facie found this conduct to be wilful disobedience and issued rule for contempt. Held that non-compliance with a conditional eviction order and non-filing of undertaking amounts to contempt of court. B) Contempt of Court - False Statement and Perjury - Misrepresentation About Delivery of Possession - The tenant claimed before the Court on 16.10.1995 that vacant possession was delivered on 14.10.1995, but Rent Controller's report revealed no such delivery, with only a garage lock being placed and later removed by tenant. The Court found the statement and affidavit false and issued rule for perjury in addition to contempt. Held that making false statements before the Court and filing false affidavits constitutes contempt of court and perjury. C) Execution of Eviction Decree - Objections by Judgment-Debtor - Scope and Compliance - The tenant raised objections in execution regarding occupation of additional portions. The Supreme Court directed the Rent Controller to ensure delivery of vacant possession through police help if necessary. Possession was ultimately delivered on 07.03.1996. Held that judgment-debtor cannot use frivolous objections to obstruct execution of Supreme Court's order. D) Contempt of Court - Procedural Compliance - Personal Appearance and Warrants - The tenant repeatedly absented himself from court, leading to issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants and forfeiture of surety bonds. Held that non-appearance despite directions further aggravates contempt and warrants coercive measures.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent tenant's failure to file an undertaking and hand over vacant possession by the deadline set by the Supreme Court constituted wilful disobedience and contempt; whether his false statement and affidavit about delivery of possession warranted perjury proceedings; and whether he could raise objections in execution to defeat the Supreme Court's order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court, after prima facie finding that respondent made incorrect statement and filed false affidavit, issued rule for contempt and perjury. It directed Rent Controller to ensure delivery of vacant possession through police help if necessary. After Rent Controller reported delivery of possession on 07.03.1996, the Court on 12.03.1996 allowed respondent's prayer to file affidavits and directed his release on bail (text incomplete before final order).
Law Points
- Civil contempt
- wilful disobedience
- undertaking
- eviction order
- false affidavit
- perjury
- execution objections
- personal appearance
- police assistance
