KAPIL P MOHMED Vs. S ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt processing was required to be instituted on account of the gross kind of contempt which, according to the respondent, he is entitled to commit by telling the Court that he is entitled to flout the order of the Court with impunity. The facts which will be presently mentioned will reveal the gross character of the contempt.

(2.) The petitioner before me is the plaintiff in the suit filed by him in the City Civil Court against the present respondent who is the defendant in the said suit. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to hereafter as the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is a lessee of a portion of the land belonging to the Bombay Port Trust, near the Clock Tower, at the entrance of Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Bombay. On the portion of the said land he has constructed shops and, according to him, he was conducting his fish business in one of the shops in the name and style M/s. General Fisheries (India). According to the plaintiff, about three years before the date of filling of the suit (Short Cause Suit No. 6446/81) the defendant asked for his permission to sit in one of the shops belonging to the plaintiff and to sell fish in the same by payment of a commission to the plaintiff on its sale. This permission was granted and the arrangement continued for about one year. According to the plaintiff, thereafter the defendant got permission from the plaintiff to do the work of processing of fish in the said shop. For the purpose of the said arrangement, the paraphernalia for carrying out the processing work was to be supplied by the plaintiff and the defendant was to be given use of the said paraphernalia and of the shop for the purpose of fish processing work. A sum of Rs. 50/- for every 200 kgs. and 25 paise for every additional Kilogram were the processing fees to be paid by the defendant. The defendant started using the premises in this manner and continued to do the fish processing work with the help of the paraphernalia supplied by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, this arrangement continued for about 6 months, that is to say, the defendant paid the processing charges as agreed above for that much period. But thereafter he stopped paying the dues and over and above that he started residing in the said shop and thus committed an offence under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. It is the plaintiffs grievance that he also indulged in offence under the Food Adulteration Act. Hence, a notice dated 25-3-1981 was given by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the premises within a week from the date of the notice and he asked to stop to do the processing work. By his reply dated 10-4-1981 the defendant contended that he was in occupation of the fish shop for the last four years as a tenant, selling fresh fish in the same. He also claimed that he was staying in the same with members of his family and was paying Rs. 1,200/- per month to the plaintiff in that behalf although the plaintiff did not issue any rent receipt is connection with the said payment. He also made the same grievance regarding the disconnection and cutting off of electricity supply. Some correspondence seems to have ensued between the parties subsequently but that has no relevance with the question to be decided in the present petition.

(3.) In view of this evidence dispute, the plaintiff filed the instant suit, out of which these proceedings arose, on 17th July, 1981. The plaintiff contended that in the suit premises the defendant was allowed only to do this processing work with the help of fish processing paraphernalia belonging to the plaintiff. In the suit, the plaintiff appears to be denying that the defendant is either a tenant or a licence protected under the Rent Act. His contention is that the defendant has been in arrears of the amount payable by him for a period of 18 months before the date of the suit. According to the plaintiff, electricity bill was to be paid by the defendant which he had failed to pay and that the electrical supply has been disconnected by the B.E.S.T. on that account in December 1979. He contended that the licence given by him for processing of the fish in the the said shop was withdrawn or terminated and that, hence, the plaintiff is entitled to require the defendant to vacate the suit premises. In the suit, the plaintiff has asked for possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff has also claimed arrears of the amount payable as processing charges from the month of November 1979 to June 1981.