1989 (12) TMI 350 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by Respondents 1 and 2.
2. Execution of eviction decree against the second respondent.
3. Relief and punishment for the first respondent.

Summary:

Issue 1: Contempt of Court by Respondents 1 and 2
The petitioner sought to convict Respondents 1 and 2 for contempt of court by violating the terms of an undertaking in Civil Appeal No. 2628 of 1980. The first respondent, K.M.M. Shetty, had filed an undertaking to vacate the premises by 31.3.1989. However, the second respondent, Raghuram A. Shetty, filed Civil Suit No. 306 of 1989 seeking a declaration that the eviction decree could not be executed against him, and obtained a temporary injunction. The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for not handing over possession as per the undertaking and misleading the court by stating he was not in possession of the premises.

Issue 2: Execution of eviction decree against the second respondent
The second respondent claimed to be in possession of the premises under a license from P.A. Dange and later from the tenant, and sought protection under amendments to the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. The court held that the interim injunction granted by the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Thane, was not justified. The court directed that the petitioner is entitled to execute the eviction decree against all persons in possession of the property, including the second respondent.

Issue 3: Relief and punishment for the first respondent
The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the undertaking and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 within four weeks, failing which he would face simple imprisonment for one month. The court also directed the first respondent to deliver vacant possession of the premises immediately. The District Magistrate, Thane, was instructed to evict all persons in possession of the property, including the second respondent, with police help if necessary, and give vacant possession to the petitioner. The rule issued against the second respondent was discharged.