Delhi High Court
Sneh Lata vs V.K. Mittal And Ors. on 14 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: 29(1986)DLT298, 1986RLR209
Author: D.P. Wadhwa
Bench: D.P. Wadhwa
JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J.
1. By this order I am to decide an application of Sneh Lata, the plaintiff filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC and Section 12 of the Contempt of Course Act, 1971. there are two respondents: Respondent No. 1 is V.K. Mehta, respondent No. 1 himself, who is former husband of Sneh Lata, and respondent No. 2 Balwant Kumar stated to be the tenant in the house bearing No. E-42 Ashok Vihar, Delhi which house is the subject matter of partition suit between Sneh Lata and Mittal.
2. There is no dispute that this house has been built on a plot of land held on perpetual lease hold basis by both Sneh Lata and Mittal as joint lessees. There is also no denying the fact that the house built thereon was by the efforts of both the parties though there is serious contest as to the amounts spent by each of the parties and the nature of the amount so spent. As to what is the share of the respective parties in the house as well as in the land is mainly the subject matter of the suit and would be decided in due course.
3. The suit was filed by Sneh Lata on 10-11-1982. Thereafter she also filed an application under Order 40 of the Code, being IA No. 346 of 1983 on 11-1-1983. In this she prayed for appointment of a receiver of the property in question to recover rents and thereafter make the payment of Installments of the loan taken and also for payment of municipal taxes. In para 6 of the application Sneh Lata mentioned that it was the defendant who had been recovering rent from the tenants in respect of the property in dispute and that he had already recovered rents amounting to Rs. 1,13,200/-. Then she said here are two tenants namely Harish Khera and Balwant Kumar (respondent No. 2) who were paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,300/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively to Mittal. A reply to this application was filed by Mittal. Apart from other things he said that appointment of receiver would cause unnecessary financial burden on him and in reply to para 6 of the application he denied having received rents amounting to Rs. 1,13,200/- and said that rental income had not been more than Rs. 40,000/-. Then he made certain allegation s against Sneh Lata for driving out certain tenants in the house and thus depriving Mittal of rent. Then he said that even the present tenant Shri Balwant Kumar is facing acute harassment as the applicant is bent upon driving him out to find out an easy access to trespass into the premises. Mittal then said as under:
"It is wrong that there are two tenants Harish Khera and Balwant Kumar and it is also wrong that they are paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,300/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively and on the other hand only Shri Balwant Kumar is a tenant in whole of the property barring one room in occupation of the respondent on a total (SIC) of Rs. 900/- per month. The property was previously with Mr. Harish Khera on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month."
This reply of Mittal was filed on 11-2-1983.
4. Meanwhile during the hearing of his application, the parties were directed to file certain statements showing as to how much amount was spent by each of them on the land and the house. In the statement filed on 13-3-1983. Mittal mentioned that in 1980-81 period he borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from Smt. Balwant Kumar and that this amount was still outstanding. Mittal also filed an affidavit dated 22-3-1983 and in para 5 of it he mentioned that in January 1981 he changed the floor of the house from ordinary plain simple floor to marble floor and incurred a cost of Rs. 24,000/- and further that he incurred an additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the wood work and another sum of Rs. 4,000/- on electric fittings and wires. This sum Rs. 40,000/- he said was spent by him by borrowing a sum of Rs. 50,000/-from Smt. Balwant Kumar, my tenant, who is adjusting the same out of the rent payable to him. Smt. Balwant Kumar my tenant is adjusting the sum of Rs. 650/- per month first towards interest and then towards the principal. So far no adjustment has taken place against the principal." These allegation were vehemently denied by Sneh Lata and she said that Smt. Balwant Kumar was not the tenant and hat it was Balwant Kumar who was the tenant and that Mittal had falsely alleged that he had raised loan from Shri Balwant Kumar, Sneh Lata also denied that the rate of rent of Rs. 650/- per month (SIC) it was adjusted towards interest out of the alleged loan raised. This (SIC) in reply of Smt. Sneh Lata is dated 29-7-1983.
5. Then, on 30-8-1985 the following order came to be passed on IA No. 346 of 1983.
"Heard. Pending disposal of the suit the defendant is restrained from alienating, transferring or parting with possession of the property in any way in favor of any person without prior leave of this court. Mr. Chopra states that here is only one tenant in the premises in question, namely Shri Balwant Kumar, Balwant Kumar is directed to deposit in this court every month the rent payable by him to the defendant. The money so deposited will be utilised for making payment towards municipal and other taxes and dues. IA stands disposed of."
6. A copy of this order was also directed to be sent to Balwant Kumar by order dated 13-1-1984. this was on an application of Sneh Lata (IA No. 204 of 1984). This is not disputed by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for Balwant Kumar that the order of the court dated 30-8-1983 was duly communicated to Balwant Kumar. Sneh Lata also got sent a notice to Balwant Kumar through her counsel informing him of the court's order dated 30-8-1983. This notice was sent by Mr. J.K. Seth, counsel for Sneh Lata and is dated 15-9-1983 and was sent under registered AD post. Receipt of this notice is also admitted by Mr. Sinha appearing for Balwant Kumar. The order dated 30-8-1983 in no uncertain terms required that the rent would be deposited is court every month by Balwant Kumar who was admitted to be a tenant of the property in question.
7. Since no rent was even deposited in terms of the court's order dated 30-8-1983 the present application came to be filed on 31-1-1985. On notice being issued both the respondents appeared and I recorded their statements and they also filed their respective replied. In his statement recorded on 27-2-1985 Mittal stated that he did not collect any rent from Balwant Kumar and that Balwant Kumar was not paying rent. He said that this was so as he had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from Balwant in lump sum at the time when Balwant Kumar took possession of the house and that was about two years ago. Mittal further stated that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was taken by him for construction and for repairs of the house and that the agreement with the tenant was that he would charge no rent and that rent would be adjusted towards interest payable by Mittal to Balwant Kumar. Mittal also said that the agreement was registered and it could be produced. He said that no rate of interest was agreed and that the market rate of rent of the property would be around Rs. 1,000/- per month. Mittal in his statement also mentioned about the repairs carried out by him. On his receiving the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. He did not remember the period during which these additions and alterations were going on in the house but these were done before the tenant moved into the house. In his reply filed on 10-4-1985, which is supported by an affidavit, Mittal, however, said that no rent was payable by Balwant Kumar as Balwant Kumar was not the tenant and that his wife was the tenant. He said that the wife of Balwant Kumar spent Rs. 50,000/- on this house and that it was agreed that the rent amount of Rs. 650/- per month would be adjusted against interest. He also categorically said in his reply that the wife of Balwant Kumar was the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- and not Rs. 900/- as alleged. With this reply Mittal also filed an affidavit of Balwant Kumar which was sworn on 30-7-1983. In this affidavit Shri Balwant Kumar said that as the premises were in bad shape he had got various repairs carried out at the cost of Rs. 50,000/- before moving into the house. Then he gave the details of the repairs carried out by him. Balwant Kumar also said that the rate of Rs. 650/- was to be adjusted against the amount of interest. He further said that the tenancy was in the name of his wife and that the amount was also spent from her account.
8. I recorded the statement of Balwant Kumar on 7-8-1985. In this he said that the house was under the tenancy of his mother (Smt. Kamla Devi) and his wife (Smt. Shail Bala). He said that his wife has given a loan of Rs. 50,000/- to Mittal at the rate of 12 per cent per annum interest and the interest accruing thereon was to be adjusted towards rent. He said that his mother had also given a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Mittal. Then he said there were two portions of the house and one portion was given to him and the other to his mother. He also filed photo copies of the agreements entered into by Mittal with his wife and with his mother. Balwant Kumar also said that the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 500/- per month and neither his wife nor his mother paid any rent to Mittal and the amounts advance to Mittal were still outstanding.
9. Balwant Kumar also filed his reply on 12-8-1985. He said that Mittal had entered into two lease deeds with his mother and his wife and that in these lease deeds it was mentioned that Rs. 50,000/- would be given to Mittal by each of the tenants for their respective portions in the building at the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and that Mittal would not charge any rent. It was also said that the monthly rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 500/- for each portion. Nothing was said in this reply as to why Balwant Kumar did not bring to the notice of the court when order dated 30-8-1983 was served upon him and also when notice of Mr. J.K. Seth, Advocate for the plaintiff was received by him requiring him to deposit the rent in court. Thus according to Balwant Kumar a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been paid to Mittal carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. An affidavit of Balwant Kumar was also filed on 20-9-1985. With this he filed photo copies of two receipts issued to his wife and mother by Mittal for having received two amounts of Rs. 50,000/- each both dated 17-7-1982. If reference is made to the receipts of Mittal issued Shail Bala wife of Balwant Kumar it would be seen that Mittal received two amounts of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- by means of two bearer cheques dated 26-6-1982 and 10-7-1982 and that the third amount of Rs. 20,000/- was received by Mittal by a bank draft dated 17-7-1982. This receipt further receipts that the amounts were paid as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 16-7-1982 executed between Shail Bala and Mittal in respect of letting out of rear portion of the property in question. As regards the receipt issued to Kamla Devi Mittal also recited same very facts except that there was now the front portion which had been let out and that the amounts were received in sums of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- by means of bearer cheques dated 10-7-1982 and bank draft dated 17-7-1982 respectively. Both the rent deeds are on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2/- each and are unregistered. The tenant have been allowed user both for residential and commercial purposes and the right of subletting has also been given in these rent deeds.
10. I also thought it necessary to examine both Smt. Shail Bala and Smt. Kamla Devi. Their statements were recorded on 13-1-1986.
11. Kamla Devi said that he had taken on rent the front portion of the house from Mittal whose full name she did not know and that no rate of interest was settled. She said that she had paid Rs. 50,000/- to Mittal in lump sum. As to what were the terms of the tenancy she did not know the terms thereof. To the same effect was the statement of Shail Bala.
12. Thereafter I again recorded the statement of Mittal. I asked him that in a statement which was recorded on 27-2-1985 he had stated that Balwant Kumar was the tenant and now both Kamla Devi and Shail Bala were claiming to be his tenant, he said that he had been dealing with only Balwant Kumar. I also asked him that in his earlier statement he had stated that the tenancy agreement with Balwant Kumar was registered which he had stated he could produce. Mittal said that the agreement which he referred was the one produced by Kamla Devi and Shail Bala. As would appear from the above there were two agreements and not one. I gave opportunity to the parties to file further affidavits, if any, but no affidavit was filed.
13. Narration of the above events would show that the respondents are clearly in contempt. They it appears have no respect for truth or the procedure established by law.
14. On the application of which order was made on 30-8-1983 disobedience of which order is being claimed the order in fact was passed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code and the provisions of Rule 2-A of Order 39 are, therefore also attracted.
15. In reply filed on 11-2-1983 the case of Mittal was that Balwant Kumar was tenant of whole of the property except one room on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. As per the statement filed on 14-3-1983, the tenant was Mrs. Balwant Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/-. As per this statement, Mittal had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from Mrs. Balwant Kumar prior to January, 1981 as with this amount he allegedly carried out various repairs. Then as per statement of his counsel made in court on 30-8-1983 it was Balwant Kumar who was the only tenant of the premises. In his statement of 27-2-1985 Mittal said that he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from Balwant Kumar at the time he took possession of the house and no rent was being paid by Balwant Kumar. When Mittal said that Balwant Kumar took possession two years ago, he would be referring to early part of 1983. Again, according to Mittal, he had taken this amount of Rs. 50,000/- for construction and for repairs of the house which as per his earlier statement mentioned above he carried out prior to January, 1981. On 27-2-1985 the case of Mittal that the market rate of rent of the premises was Rs. 1,000/- per month approximately and that no rate of interest was agreed on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- taken by Mittal from Balwant Kumar. When he filed his reply of 10-4-1985 to the application for contempt, Mittal stated that Balwant Kumar was the tenant and his wife was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month. He denied that Balwant Kumar was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. He said he could produce the agreement of tenancy which according to him was registered but none was produced. Of course his admission is there that he was all the time dealing with Balwant Kumar. At every step Mittal has given a different version.
16. Now if reference is made to the statements of the two ladies Shail Bala and Kamla Devi respectively, the wife and mother of Balwant Kumar, they also are in ignorance of the affairs except that they say that they have paid various amounts to Mittal. When Mittal filed his statement of liabilities as per directions of the court he had shown that he owed only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Mrs. Balwant Kumar which he had borrowed from her in 1980-81. As noted above, the statement was filed only on 14-3-1983. If this version of Mittal was correct, the receipts of Rs. 50,000/- which purported to have been issued by Mittal to these two ladies and which are dated 17-10-1982 could hardly be explained. If these receipts are to be believed, Mittal could not have said that he borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from Smt. Balwant Kumar in 1980-81. He never mentioned that he owned any amount to Kamla Devi much less a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
17. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for Balwant Kumar stated that Balwant Kumar could not be blamed for having disobeyed the court's order. He said that he was not the tenant and that the receipts and lease deeds filed clearly showed that the tenants were Shail Bala and Kamla Devi and that Mittal had taken a sum of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from these two ladies. Mr. Sinha could not explain the silence of Balwant Kumar when he received court's orders intimating him the order of 30-8-1983 as well as notice of Mr. J.K. Seth, Advocate Sneh Lata. Then in the affidavit of Balwant Kumar dated 30-7-1983, it was admitted by Mr. Sinha it was stated that it was Balwant Kumar who carried out certain repairs at the cost of Rs. 50,000/- before moving into the house and that rate of rent was Rs. 650/- per month which was to be adjusted against the amount of interest and though he said the tenancy was in the name of his wife. In this affidavit Balwant Kumar did not say that any money was advanced by his mother as well, or that there were two separate tenancies, one in the name of his wife and the other in the name of his mother. He also did not say that any money was advised either by his wife or his mother to Mittal and what he said that he himself got various repairs carried out in the house at the cost of Rs. 50,000/-. I think the story now put forward by the two respondents about payment of Rs. 50,000/- by these two ladies and the execution of lease deeds is an after-thought and these documents have been brought into frustrate the claim of Sneh Lata. Whether these two ladies made payment to Mittal by means of bear cheques of bank drafts is immaterial as it would be seen that these documents were allegedly made some time in July, 1982, when according to Mittal, he received Rs. 50,000/- from Smt. Balwant Kumar before January, 1981 and no payment at all from Kamla Devi, if I am to believe his statement filed in court earlier. The question of admissibility of the alleged lease deeds is also there. For all it appears to me that both the respondents want to deprive Sneh Lata of her right during the pendency of these proceedings which right was sought to be safeguarded by the court by its order on 30-8-1983, her only fault being that her marriage with Mittal turned out to be an unfortunate affair. Both Mittal and Balwant Kumar have disobeyed the court's order and to justify their action they have told lies in court with impunity. Disobedience of court's order by them is willful and is a continuing one. In fact, I would say that the conduct of the respondents borders criminal contempt falling under para (iii) of the definition of 'Criminal Contempt' in Section 2(c) of the Act. I asked learned counsel for the respondents if they were prepared to deposit in court the rent at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month as per order of 30-8-1983 but Mr. Chopra said there was no question of that.
18. For all these reasons, I hold that respondent V.K. Mittal and Balwant Kumar have committed contempt and it is of such a nature that is substantially interferes with the due course of justice. I am of the view that in the present case imposition of fine will not meet the ends of justice. I would, therefore order that both the respondents, namely, V.K. Mittal and Balwant Kumar be detained civil prison for a period of one month.
19. Last it be understood that the respondent can get away for not obeying the court's order by suffering detention in civil prison, I order that the salary of V.K. Mittal be attached to the extent permissible in law for the amount of Rs. 26,100/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from 1-9-1983 to 31-1-1985 which was ordered to be deposited as per order dated 30-8-1983. The attachment will on particulars being filed by the petitioner.
20. Respondent No. 2, Balwant Kumar is having a tailoring as well as cloth shop in Rohtak Road area, as told to me by Mr. Sinha, his counsel. His assets in that property are also attached to the extent of the amount above mentioned. Again attachment will issue on particulars filed by the petitioner.