Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kuber Dutt vs Ajay Shukla And Others on 12 September, 2011
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.790/2011 Kuber Datt-Appellant vs Shri Ajay Shukla and ors-Respondents Date of order : 12.9.2011 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Arun Mishra Hon'ble Miss Justice Bela M. Trivedi Mr.UM Jain for the petitioner. By the Court :( Per Hon'ble Ms.Bela.M.Trivedi)
(1)The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this court by filing the present petition under section 12 read with sections 10 and 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'said Act') alleging contempt against the respondents for the disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in the Rent Appeal No.59/2005.
(2)It appears that the present petitioner had filed an Eviction petition being No.116/2003 against one M/s Rooplal Kanhaiyal Lal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Ajmer under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The respondent No.1 happened to be the Presiding Officer of the Rent Control Tribunal, Ajmer during the period between 22.6.2006 to 6.3.2009. The respondent No.2 also happened to be the Presiding Officer of the Rent Control Tribunal Ajmer succeeding the respondent No.1 since 7.3.2009, and the respondent No. 3 represented the defendant Rooplal and Kanhaiya Lal as the Advocate in the said proceeding filed by the petitioner. It further transpires that the concerned Rent Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 16.4.2005 allowed the petition of the petitioner, relying upon the affidavits of witnesses filed and on the documents produced by both the parties. The said order of the Rent Tribunal was challenged by the said defendant M/s Rooplal Kanhaiyal Lal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Almer by filing the appeal No.59/2005. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, allowed the said appeal as per the judgment dated 21.10.2005, setting aside the judgment dated 16.4.2005 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in eviction petition No. 116/2003 and remanded the case with the following direction:
"???????????? ?????? ??????, ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 16.04.2005 ?????? ???? ???? ?? ? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? 10.11.2005 ?? ??????? ???"
(3)According to the petitioner, the matter thereafter was fixed before the Rent Tribunal for the cross examination of the petitioner and his witnesses whose affidavits were earlier filed, however thereafter also the matter was being adjourned from time to time. Subsequently the respondent No.3 gave an application under section 21 of the said Act, though the appellate court had remanded the case only to record the cross examination of the witnesses. The respondent No.1 entertained the said application of the respondent No.3 and also permitted to produce on record other documents filed by respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 again gave another application under section 21 of the said Act and the same was also entertained by respondent No.1. It is further case of the petitioner that since the remand of the case by the court was limited only to the extent recording the cross examination of the witnesses who had filed the affidavits, the action of the respondent No.3 in filing the application one after other, and the action of the respondents No. 1 and 2 in entertaining such applications were in utter disregard and in violation of the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal,amounting to the contempt of court as per the provisions contained in the said Act. Petitioner therefore has filed the present petition invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this court.
(4)The learned counsel Mr. UM Jain for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal had remanded the case only for a limited purpose of granting the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had filed the affidavits earlier, and therefore the respondent Nos 1 and 2 violated the said directions given in the said order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by entertaining the applications submitted by the respondent No.3 under section 21 of the said Act. Mr. Jain placing reliance on the decision in case of Mahabir Prasad vs the State ( AIR 1953 Madhya Bharat 60)submitted that the judges of the inferior courts and magistrate could be punished for contempt of court for acting unjustly and oppressively in the execution of their duties and for disobeying the orders passed by the higher courts. Of course Mr.Jain has conceded that the said eviction petition has recently been dismissed by the Rent Court.
(5)Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be stated that as per the definition contained in Sec.2(b) of the said Act, civil contempt means wilful disobedinece to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. It is also trite to say that the Judges of the inferior courts could be punished for the contempt of the court if any wilful disobedience to any direction or order passed by the higher court is found by the High Court, in view of provision contained in Sec. 16 of the said Act. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it appears that the Appellate Rent Control Tribunal had remanded the case to the Rent Tribunal for granting the opportunity to both the parties to cross-examine the witnesses who had filed the affidavits earlier and had directed the Tribunal to decide the case in accordance with law. The applications under section 21 of the said Act were filed by the respondent no.3 on behalf of the defendant after the said remand of the case made by the Appellate Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the respondent Nos 1 and 2, who were the Presiding Officer at the relevant time were bound to consider and decide such applications. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 and 2 had not granted the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.3 had committed contempt by submitting the applications under Sec.21 of the Rent Act and the respondent No.1 and 2 had committed contempt by entertaining the said applications. We do not find any substance in the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There could not be said to be any willful disobedience on the part of any of the respondents, which could be termed as the contempt of court. It is also pertinent to note that the said eviction petition of the petitioner has already been dismissed by the concerned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal recently. There being no substance in the present petition, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Bela M.Trivedi),J. (Arun Mishra),CJ. Om
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Om Prakash pa