K.C.G. Verghese Vs. K.T. Rajendran & Anr.
EmailIn Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5393-94/1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1999 of the High Court of Madras in CRP 1001 and 1002/95)
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5393-94/1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1999 of the High Court of Madras in CRP 1001 and 1002/95)
Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Tenancy – Eviction of tenant – Non compliance with the order of the Apex Court directing eviction of tenant and delivery of vacant possession within six months – Initiation of contempt proceedings by the landlord – Tenant taking the stand that he had vacated the portion which was in his occupation and in respect of the rest which was under the occupation of his brother he was insisting on the performance of the oral agreement of sale with the landlord – Brother of tenant taking the stand that he was in occupation by way of independent right and that he had paid certain money to the landlord for the sale of the portion in his occupation and that the landlord had to independently work out his rights against him. Discharging the brother from the contempt proceedings but overruling his objections held that the tenant while giving an undertaking to the court to vacate the premises within the time granted by the court not having indicated that he was in possession only of a part of the premises and not the other portion nor such a plea having been taken in the proceedings, the order of eviction against the tenant was equally binding upon his brother. Accordingly principal judge directed to take steps to give effect to the order of the court, in ejecting the tenant’s brother and deliver the vacant possession to the landlord. (Para 3)
1. On an order of eviction passed against him in RCOP No. 3598/86 by the rent controller, the contemnor no. 1. K.T. Rajendran – filed C.R.P. Nos. 1001-1002 of 1995 on the file of the High Court of Madras and on dismissal thereof, special leave petition nos. 5393-94 of 1999 were filed before this Court. On 31.1.2000, this Court made an order dismissing the said petition, however, subject to the usual undertaking filed within two weeks from that date and contemnor no. 1 was granted six months time to vacate the suit premises, that is No. 7, IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar – 600020. He filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit on 7.2.2002 stating that ‘he will not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the landlord/respondents on or before 31st July, 2000’. Thereafter, on 29.6.2000 he intimated the complainant that he had vacated the portion in his occupation in premises No. 7, IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar – 600020 and the rest of the portion is in possession of his brother K.T. Baskaran pursuant to an agreement of sale with him. By his letter dated 1.7.2000 he also intimated that he is negotiating with K.T. Baskaran for delivery of possession but he is insisting on performance of the agreements of sale with him and that he will try to persuade him through mutual friends.
2. On these facts, the complainant brought this complaint stating that contemnor no. 1 has not complied with the orders passed by this Court and contemnor no. 2 is helping the first contemnor in not handing over the suit premises to him. The stand taken before us by contemnor no. 1 is the same as stated earlier that portion of the premises in his possession has been vacated by him and the other portion has not been vacated since it is not in his possession but is in possession of his brother K.T. Baskaran. The said K.T. Baskaran, contemnor no. 2, took the stand that he is not a party to the proceedings taken by the complainant against K.T. Rajendran either in the special leave petition filed before this Court or in any of the earlier proceedings and, therefore, question of his disobeying the orders passed by this Court could not arise at all; that the building comprised of ground floor, first floor and second floor and he is occupying the ground floor since 1989 by way of independent right under oral agreement between the complainant and the deponent by which an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been paid in cash to sell; that these facts had been concealed and the complainant had filed a rent control original petition against K.T. Baskaran but he did not pursue with since he wanted to take advantage of this contempt petition filed before this Court; that in view of his independent right the question of his vacating the premises would not arise and the complainant will have to independently work out his rights against him. In view of the fact that the second contemnor K.T. Baskaran was not a party to the proceedings, we discharged the proceedings against him in these contempt petitions.
3. The stand of contemnor no. 1 is plainly untenable. When the undertaking was given by him to the court, he did not indicate that he was in possession of a part of the promises and not the other portion of the premises nor was such a stand taken in any of the pleadings raised before the High Court or the rent controller. In these circumstances, we have to hold that the order of eviction passed against the first contemnor is equally binding upon the second contemnor K.T. Baskaran. Indeed a power of attorney has been executed by contemnor no. 1, K.T. Rajendran in favour of K.T. Baskaran to the effect to attend to all the matters relating to the tenancy of house, ground and premises No. 7, IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar – 600020, which is the tenanted premises in the present case in that document there is no mention of his independent right to the premises as claimed now. In these circumstances, we overrule the objections raised by the said K.T. Baskaran for vacating the premises in question.
4. We, therefore, direct that the principal judge, city civil and sessions court shall take steps to give effect to our order, if necessary, with the help of police for ejecting the said K.T. Baskaran from the said premises and the possession is delivered to the complainant in these proceedings by removing all obstructions thereto and make a report after compliance to this order.
***********
