In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case of the Landlord vs. Contemnor unfolded with the Court addressing the issue of non-compliance with its orders. The contemnor, despite multiple opportunities and warnings, failed to vacate the suit premises as directed by the Court. The judgment, delivered by Judges J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal on September 9, 2024, held the contemnor accountable for deliberately flouting the Court’s orders. The decision sheds light on the importance of upholding court directives and the consequences of failing to do so.
Facts
- The conduct of the respondent/contemnor was unveiled by his earlier counsel, Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, who received a message from the contemnor not to appear on his behalf.
- The respondent/tenant failed to provide the undertaking as ordered by the Court and filed Review Petitions which were dismissed.
- The Court granted nine months for vacating the premises subject to filing of an undertaking and affidavit.
- Non-bailable arrest warrant was issued as the respondent was deliberately disobeying orders and failed to appear in person.
- The respondent challenged judgments and orders but did not comply with the directives of the Court.
- Despite multiple opportunities and warrants issued, the respondent did not appear or file necessary documents.
Also Read: Judgment in the Case of ICAR vs. Technical Service Employees: Distinction in Pay Scale Benefits
Analysis
- Contemnor failed to comply with court orders to vacate suit premises even after multiple dismissals of petitions and applications.
- Contemnor provided various excuses for non-compliance including being poor and having a large family to support.
- Despite being a senior citizen, contemnor attempted to gain sympathy by shedding tears in court.
- Contemnor’s requests for extensions of time to vacate premises were considered unreasonable and deliberate attempts to delay compliance.
- Court issued non-bailable warrants against contemnor, whose family members misled police officials to evade warrants.
- Contemnor’s son visited the advocate’s office in Delhi, but contemnor himself did not show up despite court proceedings.
- Newly engaged counsel also sought extensions for handing over possession, but compliance was still not achieved.
- Contemnor’s conduct in the proceedings has been questionable and non-compliant with court orders.
- The explanation provided by the individual was found to be without substance by the Court.
- The individual was held guilty for not complying with the Court’s directions.
- The Court concluded that the individual deliberately and willfully flouted the Court’s order from June 6, 2023.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement: Dealership Agreement Termination and Natural Justice
Decision
- The contemnor, an elderly individual with health issues, requested pardon and a week’s time to vacate the suit premises.
- The possession of the premises will be handed over to the petitioner/landlord and a report will be sent to the Court.
- The Court Commissioner’s fee and the cost of police assistance will be borne by the contemnor.
- If the premises are not vacated within the next seven days, a warrant of possession will be issued by the Judicial Magistrate for forceful possession with police help.
- Despite reluctance, the Court granted a week’s time for the contemnor to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner-landlord; non-compliance will result in forceful possession.
- The contemnor must hand over vacant possession of both properties to M/s Sitaram Enterprises within seven days, as per the Court’s previous order.
- The contemnor, found guilty of contempt of Court order, was sentenced till rising of the Court due to age and health condition, avoiding jail time.
- Any expenses incurred by the state in executing warrants and producing the contemnor in Court shall be borne by the contemnor.
- Details of expenses shall be communicated to the contemnor and the executing Court for deposition within four weeks.
- All pending applications are disposed of by the Court’s order.
- Judges J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal delivered the judgment on September 9, 2024, in New Delhi.
Also Read: Medical Negligence Case: Suket Hospital & Others vs. Claimant-Jyoti Devi
Case Title: M/S SITARAM ENTERPRISES Vs. PRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN (2024 INSC 685)
Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000196-000197 – 2024
