Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It may be stated that although the respondents Nos. 6 and 13 to 15 have been claiming tenancy rights in respect of the portions of the disputed premises which the subject matter of the execution, it has been admitted by all the respondents that they had been paying the rent to Abul Kalam.

7. Mr. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Jahurul Islam, has very strongly contended that the respondent No. 1, Abul Kalam, has resorted to a very sharp practice by trying to frustrate the decree obtained by Jahurul Islam and despite obtaining time from this Court, the said Abul Kalam failed and neglected to file the under taking before this Court and/or to pay rents as directed in the Order. Mr. Sanghi has submitted that since Abul Kalam has obtain ed extension of time from this Court and has enjoyed such extension of time, he must be held guilty for contempt of Court by not delivering peaceful vacant possession of the entirety of the disputed premises covered by the decree under execution after the expiry of the time granted by this Court and non-filing of the undertaking as directed by this Court is of no consequence. Mr. Sanghi has also submitted that it is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent No. 1, Abul Kalam, has deliberately set up the other respondents to file title Suits only in 1993 alter dismissal of special leave petitions on false allegations in Order to prevent due execution of the decree obtained by the petitioner, Jahurul Islam. Mr. Saiighi has also contended that it has been categorically held that Abul Kalam was in illegal possession in respect of the disputed premises which is the subject matter of the said ,Title Suit by forging rent receipt in the name of SIC and he did not get any tenancy right or the alleged thika tenancy right in respect of the said premises. It is, therefore, imperative on the part of the said Abul Kalatti to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed premises without any demurrer in Compliance with, the directness with the direction of this Court Mr. Sanghl has submitted that the respondents Nos. 13 to 15 who are opposing the execution of the decree by falsely claiming interest in the disputed premises as tenants have been set up by the said Abul Kalam and this Court should direct for execution of the decree by delivering peaceful possession of the entirety of the disputed premises which is the subject matter of the said title execution case by evicting all 'the respondents and any other person who may be found in actual possession of any portion of the disputed premises. In this connection, Mr. Sanghi has referred to the decisions of this Court reported in (sic) and the case reported in AIR 1992 SC 1537 by contending that under similar circumstances this Court directed for delivery of peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the degree-holder with police help, if necessary.

After considering the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and the affidavits filed by respondent No. 6, Ms. Hind Barrel Co. and the respondents Nos. 13 to 15, it appears to us that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a direction from the Court that the decree should be executed immediately by the Executing Court and delivery of the entirety of the suit premises covered by the decree under execution should be delivered to the decree-holder, the petitioner, Jahurul Islam, by the Executing Court by evicting the respondent No. 1, Abul Kalam and the other respondents including respondents Nos. 6 and 13 to 15 and any other person in possession of any portion of the disputed premises, if necessary, with the police help. It may be indicated here that similar direction was passed in a case reported in AIR 1992 SC 1537. In the said case, this Court granted time and stayed the execution of the decree after the dismissal of the special leave petition with a direction to file undertaking to hand over the possession on the expiry of the period granted by this Court. the judgment debtor neither filed the undertaking nor paid the rent and also failed to hand over the possession. The decree-holder thereafter made an application for contempt' against the judgment-debtor. It has been held by this Court to the following effect (at p. 1538):

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct that learned Senior Sub-Judge Narnaul (Haryana) to cause deliver up the vacant possession of the shop situated at Subzimandi, Narnaul, District Mofejindergarh (Haryana), if necessary with the help of police forthwith. The learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul is also directed to report compliance immediately.

Similar direction in the present case would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, we hereby direct the learned Addl. Munsif of Shahjahanpur to cause delivery of vacant possession of the shop No. 289 situated in Bazar Bahadurganj, Shahjahanpur under City Board Shahjahanpur to the applicants, if necessary with the help of police on or before 15th December, 1991. The learned Munsif is also directed to report compliance immediately.

11. However, in view of the unqualified apology tendered by the respondents-contemners, we do not propose to pass any further Order in the contempt application.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Executing Court to execute the decree and deliver peaceful and vacant possession to the decree-holder, Jahurul Islam, with the police help, if necessary and report compliance within six weeks from today. Post this matter on 9th February, 1994.