Miss Lucy
← All judgments

D.M.Belgamvala vs M/S Tamilnadu Real Estates (P) Ltd

Supreme Court24 November 2010Gyan Sudha Misra · Markandey Katju

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

REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COPURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO 2/2010 in S.L.P (C) No. 13704/2010

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