SHIVRAM G JAJOO Vs. S CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing forthwith.

(2.) The present contempt petition is filed alleging that the 1st Respondent has committed contempt of High Court's Order dated 28th December, 1996, passed in Civil Revision Application No.966 of 1996. By the said order the High Court held that there was no leave and licence agreement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent except special power of attorney. The High Court was of the view that clause 4 of the special power of attorney cannot be said to be a licence as defined in the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947. In this view of the matter the High Court held that the application under section 13A2 of the Rent Control Act was not maintainable and the competent authority rightly held that it has no jurisdiction in the matter. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the Civil Revision application in limine. However, it observed that "any observation made about the ownership in the impugned order shall not be read and used against the present petitioner since the Court below had held that it has no jurisdiction in the matter.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that despite this observation of the High Court, the 1st Respondent submitted an application for allotment of the new electric meter at the said flat referring himself to be the owner of the said flat. In support of his application and purported ownership of the said flat, the 1st Respondent submitted a copy of the judgment dated 8th November, 1996, passed by the Competent Authority containing observations in favour of the 1st Respondent as regards the ownership of the said flat. Thereby he procured new electric meter in his name cancelling that of the petitioner on the basis of the said order dated 8th November, 1996. The 1st Respondent, therefore, despite the knowledge of the order dated 28th December, 1996, misrepresented to the 2nd Respondent as to the ownership of the said flat and using the observations of competent authority as regards his purported title over the said flat, persuaded the 2nd Respondent to allot new electric meter in his name. It is, therefore, prayed that action under the Contempt of Courts Act be taken against the 1st Respondent.