Chiranji Lal and Another Vs. Ajay Kumar Sood
EmailAppeal: Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 216-217 of 1996 in C.As. Nos. 4175-4176 of 1994
Petitioner: Chiranji Lal and Another
Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sood
Apeal: Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 216-217 of 1996 in C.As. Nos. 4175-4176 of 1994
Judges: KULDIP SINGH & S.P. SURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 26, 1996
Head Note:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Contempt of Court – Disputes between landlord and tenants regarding eviction – Court giving directions to Landlord for reinduction of the appellant tenants upon reconstruction of the property within two years – Landlord failing to do so – Resultant contempt petition by tenants – Landlord seeking further time and agreeing to compensate the appellant tenants since reconstruction of the property for residential purposes was not possible under the prevailing bye-laws. Held interest of justice would be met by directing the landlord to compensate the appellant tenants in terms of many – Contempt petition disposed of accordingly.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The contemnor landlord is present before us. Under the directions of this Court the landlord was to reconstruct the premises and reinduct the two tenants namely Chiranji Lal and Amro Devi. This Court gave two years time to the landlord to reconstruct the premises. He has not done so. The tenants filed this contempt petition. The landlord has asked for further two years’ time. The learned counsel for the landlord further states that according to the latest bye-laws it may not be possible for him to reconstruct the building for residential purposes. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. We suggested the landlord to compensate the tenants to purge himself out of the contempt. The landlord has agreed. Both the parties have agreed that the landlord will compensate Chiranji Lal by paying him Rs one lakh. There is no agreement between Amro Devi and the landlord. Chiranji Lal was a tenant in a non-residential premises. Amro Devi was occupying a shop as well as the residence.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the landlord is directed to pay a sum of Rs two lakhs as compensation to Amro Devi. We order accordingly. The landlord, Ajay Kumar Sood shall pay a sum of Rs 50,000 to each of the tenants namely Chiranji Lal and Amro Devi on or before 15.1.1997. He shall pay further sum of Rs 50,000 to Amro Devi before 31.7.1997. The remaining sum of Rs one lakh to Amro Devi and Rs 50,000 to Chiranji Lal shall be paid by 31.12.1997. We further make it clear that any violation of this order shall further attract the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act. Apart from that , the amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. We further direct that if the money is not paid as directed above, it shall attract interest at the rate of 18%.
3. The contempt petitions are disposed of.
1. The contemnor landlord is present before us. Under the directions of this Court the landlord was to reconstruct the premises and reinduct the two tenants namely Chiranji Lal and Amro Devi. This Court gave two years time to the landlord to reconstruct the premises. He has not done so. The tenants filed this contempt petition. The landlord has asked for further two years’ time. The learned counsel for the landlord further states that according to the latest bye-laws it may not be possible for him to reconstruct the building for residential purposes. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. We suggested the landlord to compensate the tenants to purge himself out of the contempt. The landlord has agreed. Both the parties have agreed that the landlord will compensate Chiranji Lal by paying him Rs one lakh. There is no agreement between Amro Devi and the landlord. Chiranji Lal was a tenant in a non-residential premises. Amro Devi was occupying a shop as well as the residence.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the landlord is directed to pay a sum of Rs two lakhs as compensation to Amro Devi. We order accordingly. The landlord, Ajay Kumar Sood shall pay a sum of Rs 50,000 to each of the tenants namely Chiranji Lal and Amro Devi on or before 15.1.1997. He shall pay further sum of Rs 50,000 to Amro Devi before 31.7.1997. The remaining sum of Rs one lakh to Amro Devi and Rs 50,000 to Chiranji Lal shall be paid by 31.12.1997. We further make it clear that any violation of this order shall further attract the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act. Apart from that , the amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. We further direct that if the money is not paid as directed above, it shall attract interest at the rate of 18%.
3. The contempt petitions are disposed of.
