JAHURUL ISLAM Vs. ABUL KALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Jahurul Islam, petitioner, in this contempt application instituted a Suit being Title Suit No. 112 of 1982 in the Second Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, against the respondent No.1. Abul Kalam for declaration of title, recovery of khas possession of the suit property being premises No. 70, Beck Bagan Row. Calcutta, and for permanent injunction. The said Abul Kalam also instituted a Title Suit in the Second Court of learned Munsif being Title Suit No. 123 of 1983 against the petitioner. Jahurul Islam, for permanent injunction restraining the said Jahurul Islam for interfering with the possession of the said Abul Kalam in respect of the disputed property. The aforesaid suit No. 123 of 1983 instituted by Abul Kalam was transferred to the Second Court of learned Subordinate Judge and was renumbered as Suit No. 209 of 1982. Both the suits were analogously heard and the suit instituted by Abul Kalam was dismissed with costs and the suit instituted by Jahurul Islam was decreed with costs on December 9, 1987. It was inter alia held by the learned Assistant District Judge that the Urdu receipt (Exbt. A) filed by Abul Kalam in support of his tenancy right was mutilated document with so many tamperings and interpolations that it led to suggest that it was a spurious document. The learned Assistant District Judge not only dismissed the Title Suit No. 209 of 1982 but he also initiated the proceedings being Misc. Judicial Case No. 2 of 1988 against Abul Kalam for filing the said forged rent receipt in the suit. The said Misc. Judicial Case is stated to be pending in the Second Court of the Assistant District Judge, Alipore. The said Abul Kalam thereafter preferred two appeals before the High Court at Calcutta against the judgment and decree passed in Suit No. 112 of 1982 and Suit No. 209 of 1982 which were numbered as F.A. No. 78 of 1989 and F.A. No. 97 of 1990. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed both the said appeals on September 17, 1990 and the High Court inter alia came to the finding that the rent receipts filed by Abul Kalam was tampered and the name of the original tenant, Abdul Shakoor, was erased out in the receipt and the High Court also came to the finding that Abul Kalam was not the tenant. The High Court also negatived the contention of Abul Kalam that he had perfected his title by adverse possession.

(2.) The petitioner, Jahurul Islam, put the decree for eviction into execution which is numbered as Title Execution Case No. 2 of 1988. The said Title Execution Case was, however, stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the Calcutta High Court and after the disposal of the said appeals, the proceedings of the said Execution Case were commenced. Abul Kalam preferred two special leave petitions before this Court against the decree passed by the High Court in the said first appeals which were numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9452-53 of 1992. Both the said special leave petitions were heard on August 26, 1992 and were dismissed on the finding that there was no ground for interference. This Court, however, on the prayer of the petitioner in the said special leave petitions granted time till March 31, 1993 to vacate the disputed premises subject to the condition of his filing the usual undertaking within four weeks. It was also indicated in the order that if there were any arrear of rent the same should be paid within two months from the said date.

(3.) Although on the prayer of Abul Kalam, time to vacate till March 31, 1993 was given by this Court, and although the contemner, respondent No. 1, Abul Kalam, enjoyed the benefit of extended time to vacate, he did not file any undertaking before this Court and he also failed and neglected to pay the arrears of rent up to March 31, 1993 @ Rs. 1500/- per month as directed by this Court. The decree-holder, Jahurul Islam however, made an application on November 20, 1992 before the Executing Court to the effect that in view of the direction of this Court, the execution of decree should not be proceeded with till March, 31, 1993.