1994 (1) TMI 320 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title and possession of the disputed premises.
2. Violation of status quo orders.
3. Legality of sub-tenancy created during the status quo period.
4. Jurisdiction of the court in contempt proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Title and Possession of the Disputed Premises:
The dispute involves the premises at No. 16 Sudder Street, Calcutta, claimed by the Durgapur Diocese. The first respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and exclusive possession of the premises. The suit included several prayers, such as the declaration of title, the right to collect rents, and the prevention of interference by the defendants. The court initially ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the property.

2. Violation of Status Quo Orders:
The court issued multiple orders to maintain the status quo regarding the disputed property. The significant order dated 15th September 1988 directed that the status quo be maintained concerning the fixed properties. The appellants alleged that the respondents violated these orders by actions such as padlocking the entrance, disconnecting water supply, and obstructing sewerage lines. The court appointed a Special Officer to investigate and maintain the status quo.

3. Legality of Sub-Tenancy Created During the Status Quo Period:
The creation of a sub-tenancy by A.K. Ghosh in favor of Somani Builders Pvt. Ltd. was a central issue. The court noted that the sub-tenancy was created under an agreement dated 10th May 1993, during the status quo period. The court held that creating a sub-tenancy during the status quo period violated the court's order. The court emphasized that even if A.K. Ghosh had the authority to create a sub-tenancy, doing so during the status quo period was illegal.

4. Jurisdiction of the Court in Contempt Proceedings:
The court examined whether it had jurisdiction to pass orders affecting parties not originally involved in the contempt proceedings. The court criticized the lower courts for entertaining oral applications from Somani Builders, who were not initially parties to the proceedings. The court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction should focus on whether the status quo order was violated and not extend to granting possession to third parties. The court set aside the orders of the lower courts that allowed Somani Builders to occupy the premises.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge that allowed Somani Builders to occupy the premises. The court directed that the parties be relegated to the position as of 15th September 1988. Somani Builders were ordered to deliver vacant possession to the Special Officer within one month. The court emphasized that the learned Single Judge should dispose of the contempt application within the proper scope of contempt jurisdiction. The civil appeal was allowed with costs to be borne equally by respondents 1 and 2.