In somewhat similar circumstances as the case in hand, the Hon'ble
Dass Ghanshyam2014.03.20 15:21I am the author of thisdocumenthigh court chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.836 of 2007 -14-
Supreme Court in K.C.G.Verghese v. K.T.Rajendran and another (2003) 2
S.C.C. 492, directed the eviction of the unauthorized occupant and restored the
possession to the rightful holder. In this case after giving an undertaking, the
judgment debtor parted with possession in favour of another person and the Court
held the second contemner i.e. usurper of property equally guilty of contempt.
In Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 S.C.C. 307,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the purpose of initiation of contempt
proceedings are twofold : to ensure the compliance with the order passed by the
court ; and to punish the contemner as he has the audacity to challenge the majesty
of law.
This brings this Court to the last question of determining the mesne
profits on account of the unauthorized use and occupation of the premises by Ajay
Kumar Jain. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd v.
Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 S.C.C. 705 held that grant of mesne profits in
the case of a person dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings is to be
considered a substantial loss and the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
Dass Ghanshyam2014.03.20 15:21I am the author of thisdocumenthigh court chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.836 of 2007 -20-
empowered to grant any such relief that it may deem fit to reasonably compensate
the wronged and in doing so, it has to rely on robust common sense, knowledge of
human affairs and events gained by judicial experience and judicially noticeable
facts, over and above the material available on record.