9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Non-compliance with court orders regarding eviction. 2. Dispute over possession and compliance with court orders. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to a case where the contemnor, after an order of eviction against them, failed to comply with the court orders. The contemnor filed petitions before the High Court and the Supreme Court, seeking relief from eviction. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition subject to the contemnor filing an undertaking and granted time for vacating the premises. The contemnor submitted an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises by a specified date. Subsequently, the contemnor informed the complainant that a portion of the premises was vacated, while the rest was in possession of their brother pursuant to an agreement of sale. 2. The complainant alleged non-compliance with court orders by the contemnor and accused another individual, contemnor No. 2, of assisting in not handing over the premises. Contemnor No. 1 claimed to have vacated the portion in their possession but stated that the remaining portion was with contemnor No. 2, who argued that he was not a party to the proceedings and had independent rights to the premises. The Court found contemnor No. 1's stand untenable as he did not disclose partial possession earlier. It was established that an executed Power of Attorney by contemnor No. 1 in favor of contemnor No. 2 did not mention any independent rights claimed by contemnor No. 2, thereby overruling the objections raised by contemnor No. 2. 3. Consequently, the Court held that the order of eviction against contemnor No. 1 applied to contemnor No. 2 as well. The Court directed the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, to take necessary steps, including police assistance if required, to eject contemnor No. 2 from the premises and ensure the possession is handed over to the complainant by removing any obstructions. The compliance report was to be submitted after executing the Court's order.
|
