Summary
The Supreme Court held a tenant guilty of civil contempt for wilfully failing to vacate shop premises within the nine months it had granted on dismissing his SLPs against an eviction decree, despite an undertaking, and for evading appearance; considering his age and health it sentenced him only till the rising of the Court, gave a final seven days to vacate failing which possession would be taken with police help, and made him bear the State's costs of executing the warrants.
Issues
- Whether the tenant had deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the Court's order of 06.06.2023 and his undertaking to vacate the premises within nine months.
- Whether the pendency of a curative petition or the tenant's personal circumstances justified further time or excused non-compliance.
- What sentence and directions were appropriate on a finding of contempt.
Provisions considered
- Article 129, Constitution of IndiaThe Court referred to its power to punish for contempt under Article 129 as integral to the administration of justice and its own dignity, and exercised it against the tenant for wilful non-compliance. (¶¶ 2, 15, 18.4)
Held
- Contempt powers safeguard the authority of courts and public confidence in the rule of law; courts ordinarily take a lenient view of mere delay in compliance unless it is deliberate and wilful. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3)
- The tenant's conduct, which included delaying the undertaking, filing review petitions and extension applications that were dismissed, not vacating by the deadline, ignoring repeated directions to appear and a bailable warrant, and misleading the police through family members so that a non-bailable warrant went unexecuted, showed deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of 06.06.2023, and his explanation lacked substance. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- A curative petition is decided in chambers and is not available as of right; its pendency did not justify further time, and a request for more time after dismissal of the SLPs, review petitions and extension applications was wholly unreasonable and a deliberate attempt not to comply. (¶ 14)
- Considering the contemnor's age and health, the Court sentenced him only till the rising of the Court instead of sending him to jail, but directed him to bear the State's expenditure on executing the warrants and producing him. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18.4)
Result
Contempt petitions disposed of; contemnor held guilty and sentenced till the rising of the Court; he must hand over vacant possession of both premises within seven days, failing which possession is to be taken within the next seven days under a warrant of possession issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borivali, with police help in the presence of a Court Commissioner, at his cost; State expenditure on the warrants to be intimated within four weeks and deposited by him within four weeks thereafter.