Allahabad High Court
Sri Vidya Sagar vs Iiird Additional District Judge And ... on 24 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ2286
ORDER S.C. Verma, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to ensure immediate compliance of the undertaking given by the respondent No. 2 in Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1981.
2. In short the facts of the case are that the Prescribed authority by an order dated 5th January 1981 rejected the application of the landlady for release of the premises under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. Learned District Judge on appeal allowed the application for demolition and reconstruction of the building within six months of the eviction by the tenant. The portion in dispute is one residential room apartment including one Varandah, Kitchen, bath room and latrine in the occupation of the petitioner for the last '25' years on monthly rent of Rs. 8.75 and the remaining portion of the house is in actual occupation of the landlady and her family members.
3. The tenant applied for review of the order dated 21-1-1982 and after exchange of the affidavits the review petition was disposed of by an order dated 20-3-1982. The relevant portion of which is being quoted below:
"The applicant Sri Vidya Sagar has handed over the key of the tenanted portion to the opposite party in court. He has vacated the tenanted premises in consonance with order dated 20-1-1982 in R.C. Appeal No. 10 of 1981.
The applicant Sri Vidya Sagar stated that he has already taken over the possession of the alternative accommodation situated at 49-Moti Bazar, Dehradun, which carried a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. Sri Virmani states that the opposite party shall pay rent of the said premises on behalf of the applicant for six months during which tenanted disputed premises shall be constructed. Sri Virmani further stated that in case the reconstruction takes a little longer than six months the opposite party shall continue to pay the rent of 49-Moti Bazar, Sri Virmani also stated that after reconstruction the applicant shall be let into reconstructed premises and shall be entitled to remain in same without notice and without permission of the landlord. Sri Virmani also states that such entry shall be deemed to be re-allotment of the premises in favour of the applicant Sri Vidya Sagar Under Section 24 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The rent of the newly constructed premises shall however be determined afresh in accordance with law. The applicant Sri Vidya Sagar agrees with these terms.
Sd/- D. L. Agarwal, District Judge, Dehradun, 20-3-1982.
ORDER The review petition is decided accordingly in the light of the clarification and agreement of parties as mentioned above.
The order dated 20-1-1982 in R. C. appeal No. 10/81 shall therefore be read in the light of these clarifications and agreement."
There is no dispute that the tenant vacated the premises and occupied 49-Moti Bazar, Dehradun. After the building was reconstructed the Additional District Magistrate, passed an order dated 25-2-1983 allotting the premises in favour of the petitioner in case No. 23 of 1982 Under Section 24(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
3A. The landlady by notice dated 29-6-1982 informed that she has spent about Rs. 16000/- in the reconstruction of the portion in occupation of the tenant and she is entitled to rent of Rs. 160/- per month excluding taxes. The tenant was also required to deposit one month advance rent and thereafter possession was to be delivered. Para 6 of the said notice is being quoted below:
"6. That if you take possession as agreed upon in the judgment dated 20th March 1982 it shall be treated that you have agreed to the aforesaid rent which is determined according to law at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month excluding taxes.
This is to call upon you to deposit one month advance to my client and obtain receipt for the same and after obtaining receipt you are permitted to take possession of the tenanted accommodation. Otherwise also if you take possession of the tenanted accommodation you are required to remit the rent by Money Order at the aforesaid rate to my client."
The landlady further insisted by telegram dated 14-9-1982 for payment of Rs. 160/- per month and advance and thereafter possession was to be delivered.
4. The petitioner sent notice dated 21-2-1983 and also rent by Money Order of Rs. 115-00 and requested for delivery of possession. The petitioner sent another notice dated 12th March 1983. Both these notices are on record and were received by the landlady. The landlady sent a reply dated 4-3-1983 to the letter dated 21-2-1983. By this letter she informed that she had prayed for enhancement of rent as determined by the Additional District Magistrate and she further claimed water tax and sewer tax etc. In reply to the letter dated 12-3-1983 she reiterated her stand and alleged that she is prepared to fulfil her obligation under the undertaking but the tenant will have to pay water tax, house tax and sewer tax etc. as also rent which is ultimately to be determined. Thus it appears that the landlady was insisting for payment of rent of Rs. 160/- per month initially and thereafter for payment of rent which is to be finally determined by the authorities plus taxes etc. and the possession was to be delivered only after advance rent was paid. The tenant having failed in his attempts to get the possession, filed application dated 19-3-1983 in the court of District Judge for compliance of the order dated 20-3-1982 passed on the basis of undertaking furnished by the landlady. This application was contested by the landlady by filing a detailed reply dated 21-5-1984 in which it was asserted that the tenant himself is responsible for not taking possession of the building even though landlady was always prepared to fulfil her obligations under the undertaking. In the reply it was stated that in the notice dated 29-6-1982 it was made clear that the tenant should obtain necessary allotment order under the provisions of the Act and pay Rs. 160/- per month. It was admitted that in a case under Section 30 of the Act the tenant deposited rent at the rate of Rs. 115/- per month. It was further stated that the rent of portion of the building was ultimately determined at Rs. 122/- per month and according to enhanced rent plus taxes the total amount comes to Rs. 144.91. The landlady was always prepared to deliver the possession but the tenant did not pay the aforesaid amount.
5. Learned Third Additional District Judge, considering the aforesaid facts held that it cannot be accepted that the landlady ever refused to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 20-3-1982 or she wilfully committed any default in its compliance. The application of the petitioner dated 19-3-1983 was rejected by an order dated 13-3-1989.
6. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 13-3-1989 and also for suitable directions to the respondent No. 1 to ensure compliance of the undertaking given by the respondent No. 2.
7. I have heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
8. Any wilful disobedience to the orders of the court to do or abstain from doing any act or breach of any undertaking given to the court, is prima facie Civil contempt. Civil Contempt arises in cases where power of the court is invoked and exercised to enforce obedience to the orders of the court. Considering the orders passed by learned District Judge dated 20-3-1982 it cannot be construed that the order passed was a consent order or a compromise decree and for whose non-compliance, appropriate action can be taken under Civil Procedure Code. In this case it is clear that it was an undertaking given to the court and apart from the power to punish for contempt it was also obligatory on the court to have taken necessary steps to enforce obedience of the undertaking, given to the court. The reason why breach of the undertaking given to the court amounts to contempt is that a contemner by making false representation to the court obtains benefit for himself and if he fails to honour the undertaking he plays serious fraud on the court itself and thereby obstruct the course of justice and brings into disrepute the judicial institution.
9. Learned Third Additional District Judge on considering the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the landlady had not committed any wilful disobedience to the orders nor she has done any act to obstruct the compliance of the order. It may be that respondent No. 2 may not have committed any act which may be punishable for contempt of court but the learned District Judge has not considered the other aspect of the matter with regard to the execution and compliance of the undertaking given by the landlady to the court. The purpose of Civil contempt is not only to punish a contemner but also to exercise enforcement and obedience to the orders of the court. I am constrained to note that the learned District Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter and did not take any steps for compliance of the undertaking given by the landlady to the court. The learned Judge mainly engaged his attention to exonerate the landlady from punishment of the contempt and did not care to take necessary steps for obedience and compliance of the orders of the court.
10. The facts of the case make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to possession and also to pay the rent as determined by the authorities but advance payment of rent cannot be made a condition precedent for delivery of possession. The tenant was liable to bear the consequences as provided under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in case he did not pay the rent, it is true that both the parties have suffered and equities have to be adjusted. The landlady was deprived of some rent and the petitioner his possession from 1983 up to this date, even though the building was completed within stipulated period and proceedings for allotment etc. were all completed before March 1983. It was also not very proper for the learned Judge to have kept this matter pending for six years.
11. For the aforesaid reasons the order dated 13th March 1989 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Dehradun, is liable to be set aside. The petition is allowed and the learned District Judge is directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of observations made above and in accordance with the law. The learned District Judge is directed to dispose of this matter within six weeks of a certified copy of this order being placed before him.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.