D.M.Belgamvala vs M/S Tamilnadu Real Estates (P) Ltd
- SCC(2010) 15 SCC 254
- Neutral2010 INSC 808
- SCR[2010] 13 SCR 1072
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a litigant has furnished an undertaking to this Court to vacate premises and subsequently seeks to frustrate the enforcement of that undertaking by filing applications to stay or delay eviction proceedings, the Court may treat this conduct as abuse of process and proceed to enforce the earlier order for eviction and contempt proceedings against the litigant. A High Court acts in breach of judicial discipline and defies the Supreme Court's authority when it grants a stay of eviction after the Supreme Court has dismissed the Supreme Court petition seeking such relief and directed vacation within a specified time, and such action by a High Court will not be tolerated by the Supreme Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
D.M.Belgamvala ..Petitioner/ Applicant versus
M/s Tamilnadu Real Estates (P) Ltd. ..Respondent
WITH
Contempt Petition No.289 of 2010 IN S.L.P.(C) NO.13704 OF 2010
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
-2- 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 on
12.11.2010 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 18.06.2010
of 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 dated
18.06.2010 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 dated
14.05.2010.
-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]
NEW DELHI; ............................J. NOVEMBER 24, 2010 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free