M/S Atma Ram Builders P.Ltd vs A.K.Tuli & Ors

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

-2-

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

-3-

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

-4-

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

-5-

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

-6-

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]

NEW DELHI; ............................J. MAY 10, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]