1974 (7) TMI 128 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Tenancy and possession of the 'Jarao Building.'
2. Alleged wrongful occupation and dispossession.
3. Contempt of court for disobeying an interim injunction.
4. Restoration of possession and injunction application.
5. Limitation for initiating contempt proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Tenancy and Possession of the 'Jarao Building':
The primary issue revolves around the tenancy of the 'Jarao Building' located at Morris Road, Aligarh. The building was in the tenancy of successive Agents of the State Bank of Aligarh, with the last tenant being S.D. Nayar. The applicants, who purchased the building in December 1971, claimed that S.D. Nayar vacated the premises on February 19, 1972, and handed over possession to them. However, M.L. Sharma, the successor Agent, contended that the building was still under tenancy by the State Bank of India and that S.D. Nayar never vacated it. The court noted that the sale deed indicated the building was in the tenancy of the State Bank of India, which complicated the matter of rightful possession.

2. Alleged Wrongful Occupation and Dispossession:
On February 20, 1972, M.L. Sharma alleged that the applicants forcibly occupied the building in his absence. The applicants claimed they had already taken possession on February 19, 1972. A police report was lodged by M.L. Sharma, and the applicants were temporarily detained. The court observed that the applicants were dispossessed by the police on the night of February 21, 1972, under the instructions of the District Magistrate, Aligarh. The court found that the police and M.L. Sharma acted in disregard of the interim injunction order by dispossessing the applicants.

3. Contempt of Court for Disobeying an Interim Injunction:
The applicants moved the High Court for contempt proceedings against the involved parties for willful disobedience of the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court. The Single Judge found M.L. Sharma and four police officers guilty of civil contempt. M.L. Sharma and Bulaka Singh were fined Rs. 500 each, while the other officers received a warning. The court affirmed the finding of willful disobedience but, considering the circumstances, decided that a warning would suffice instead of a fine.

4. Restoration of Possession and Injunction Application:
The temporary injunction was vacated by the Civil Court, and the applicants' request for restoration of possession was dismissed. The High Court emphasized that a court can pass orders to undo wrongs done by willful disobedience of its injunctions. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration to ensure that neither party benefits from improper actions. The court directed that there should be no disturbance of possession until the matter is finally decided.

5. Limitation for Initiating Contempt Proceedings:
Special Appeal No. 688 of 1972 challenged the refusal to take contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate and S.D. Nayar. However, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes a one-year limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings. Since the period had expired, the court held that no notice could be issued to the alleged contemners.

Judgment Summary:
- Special Appeals Nos. 69 and 77 of 1973: The court found M.L. Sharma and the police officers guilty of civil contempt but decided that a warning would suffice instead of a fine.
- F.A.F.O. No. 251 of 1972 and Civil Revision No. 875 of 1972: The court set aside the orders and remanded the injunction application and the application for restoration of possession for fresh consideration.
- Writ Petition No. 3243 of 1972: Partly allowed, directing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to expedite the release application within three months.
- Special Appeal No. 688 of 1972: Dismissed due to the expiration of the limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings.

The court's observations were based on the affidavits and materials presented, and it emphasized that these observations should not be binding in subsequent litigation. The court aimed to ensure that justice was served without any party benefiting from improper actions.