K CHALAPATI RAO Vs. B N REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under section 3 of the Contempt ofcourtl act 1952 against the three respondents. The petitioner is a tenant of 6-6-1967 situate in Hyderguda, Hyderabad which is also occupied by the owners According to the petitioner, the 1st respondcnt is the owner of the houss but the 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the 1st respondent, has of late, started asserting the ownership of the house. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in September 1958. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent in the month of November, 1966 asked the petitioner to vacate the premises. He followed it up by further requests; but when he found that the petitioner was not amenable, respondents 1 and 2 and their children started giving the, petitioner trouble. The petitioner in his affidavit has given particulars of such instances from 24-3-1967 to 4-4 67, with which we are not concerned. The petitioner's case is that with the intention of harassing the petitioner and forcing him to vacate the premises, respondents 1 and 2 closed the main gate of the premises and also stopped supply qf water and electricity. The petitioner therefore filed a petition No. 168/67 before the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on 5th April 1967 seeking for an order of restoration of amenities illegally cut off by the respondents. Along with the petition, he filed I. A 203/67 for an iterim injunction which was granted on the very same day. The injunction order runs as follows:"". . . . I am satisfied that the respondents have unjustifiably denied the amenity of the entrance through the main gate and passage. The respondent is directed to immediately restore the amenity of passage through the main gate and allow the petitioner's members of the family and the servants and the people who come to the petitioner's house. Call for compliance on 7-4-1967. "the petitioner further alleges that the respondents 1 and 2 having heard about the petition filed by him before the Rent Controller tried their best to forcibly evict the petitioner's family from the premises in his absence: When the petitioner returned from the Court on 5th April 1967 at about 6 p. m he found that the gates were locked and hia request to open the same proved futile. He had therefore to jump the gate and was ridiculed by the members of the respondents' family. The petitioner moved again an urgent application on the morning of 6-4-67 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller seeking for an interim direction against the respondents to restore the electric, city and water supply. When this application was moved, the Additional rent Controller stated that he had realised at the time of signing the warrants that the respondents were very well known to him and their son-in-law is a good friend of his and for that reason he made a request to the Principal Rent controller to take back the main case as well as the I. A. on his file. The additional Rent Controller therefore advised the petitioner's counsel to present the second application before the Principal Rent Controller and obtain appropriate orders. Accordingly the petitioner's counsel presented the second petition before the Principal Rent Controller. In the meantime the petitioner took the Bailiff, process server and the Court peon to the respondents house to serve the order of interim direction in I A. 203/67. He identified respondents 1 and 2 to the Bailiff and the process server. The Bailiff and the Process server told respondents 1 and 2 that they have come from the Office of the Rest controller to serve the order of the Court directing the respondentd to open the gates and restore the passage. The petitioner's allegation is that:"the respondents were enraged on hearing those words and behaved in a high-handed manner using abusive language scandalizing and undermining the dignity of the Court and the Judge into contempt by uttering the following words : 'this is my house. The Rent Controller has no authority to open the passage of my house. I do not take the interim order and I do not open the passage'. "

(2.) After uttering those words, the 1st respondent went away in a jeep and returned within 10 minutes. The Bailiff had summoned the Police from Himayatnagar police Station. Again in the presence of the police and the panchas the bailiff and the process server requested the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent to take the notices and orders. The respondents 1 and 2 refused to take the notices and the orders and asked them to get out. The 1st respondent, again left in a jeep. A panchanamm was drawn up by the Bailiff in the presnce of all the panchas an the same was signed by all of them. It is further alleged that when the Bailiff, the proces server and the Court peon were about to go, one of the peons of the respondents came to the Bailiff and informed him that the Assistant Commissoner of Police, Sultan Bazar Division, wanted to speak to him regarding the panchanama prepared by him, to which the Bailiff replied that he was discharging his duty entrusted by a Court of law and he was not expected to meet any Officer and he left the place. When the petitioner was about to go to the Rent Controller's Court to find out the result of the second application i e. I. A. 236/67 moved by him that morning, the 1st respondent came in a jeep along with the third respondent who was the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sulthan Bazar Division, and made enquiries whether the Bailiff had left the place. On being informed that the bailiff and the process server had left the place, both the 1st respondent and the third respondent became furious for having allowed the bailiff to get away in spite of their specific instructions on phone to keep him there till they came to the spot.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter went to the Rent Controller's Court and met his counsel who was waiting to obtain orders on the second application I A. 236/67. Having been informed that no orders were passed till then the petitioner went into the Office to find out the position, when he saw the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent going into the chambers of the Additional Rent controller. The two respondents talked to the Additional Rent Controller for about half an hour and after they had left the chambers, the Additional Rent controller went to the chambers of the Principal Rent Controller with whom i. A. 236/67 was pending. Later on, the petitioner's counsel was informed that the file was with the Additional Rent Controller and that the Additional Rent controller wanted him to come to the chambers. The Additional Rent Controller also called the petitioner inside the chambers and told him that the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent had come and met him and narrated as to what all happened He further told the petitioner that when he had apprised them of the seriousness of the situation and the folly in rejecting the noticer and orders, the 1st respondent had showed his willingness to take the notices if they were sent again. On the request of the petitioner's counsel to pass interim orders on I. A. 236/67, the Additional Rent Controller observed that he would pass orders on the application after the notices and the orders on the earlier petition had been served. He gave instructions to the bailiff and the process server and posted the application to 7-4-67. The affidavit of the petitioner further alleges that when he and the counsel were leaving the Court "suprised at the sudden turn of events and the conduct of the respondents in even going to the extent of trying to influence the judicial officers and interfering with due course of justice", the bailiff and the process server met him, and wanted him to accompany them as they were going again to serve the notices on the respondents; The petitioner realised "at this stage that the bailiff and the process server were being frightened at the influence of the respondents, told them that when the summons and notices were once returned unserved and especially when the same was recorded in a panchanama, any further attempt to serve the returned notices would be an illegal act unless a fresh batta was paid after orders are duly made by the Court to that effect. " However the respondents' couasel took the notices and sommons from the Court on 7-4-67. On 7-4-67 it was represented to the Court that the respondents 1 and 2 had not complied with the terms of the order dated 5-4-67 and that an application for restoration of supply of electricity and water which were cut off, were still pending. On this the respondent's counsel gave an undertaking that his clients would restore the amenities, which the Court recorded and made an order to that effect. In spite of the undertaking given by the respondents counsel, the amenities were not restored till the morning of 8-4. 67. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondents counsel by the petitioner and as a result of that the respondents opened the lock of the main gate for the first time for some time in the evening of 8-4-67.