LAKSHMI NARAYAN DUTTA Vs. MIRA RANI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the respective contentions of the parties this Court is satisfied that there has been deliberate violation of its order passed on 23rd June, 1983 which order is more specifically set out in para 18 of the petition for contempt. The relevant part of the said order reads: So far as new construction is concerned there will be status quo as of today. The proposed, construction will not be let out in the meantime.

(2.) THE service of the said order on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is admitted. It is also admitted that the respondent No. 3 is the husband of respondent No. 2. From the pleadings it appears that the case of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been that there has been no violation of the Court's order inasmuch as all works to the building had been completed prior to the application initiated by the petitioner and on which application the said order referred to was passed. The second defence of the respondents from the pleadings appears to be that the report of Mr. Utpal Roy who was appointed Special Officer to visit the premises to ascertain if any violation of the order dated 23rd June, 1983 had taken place, is a false and fraudulent document inasmuch as the Special Officer did not inspect the building in question on the 5th July, 1983 on which date the report was made. The case of the respondents has been that the report was false, fabricated and manufactured document obtained under the direct influence of the petitioner and as such the basis of the report of Sri Utpal Roy dated 5th July, 1983 was denied and in fact an application taken out for the report to be set aside. What is significant to note is that under orders of the Court the Special Officer was directed to visit the premises once again, to take possession of the building materials lying at the site and to store the same. Pursuant to this order passed, on 23rd July, 1983 the Special Officer revisited the premises on 29th July, 1983 and found that construction works had been continued even after his last visit to the premises on the 5th July, 1983 and all plastering works on the 3rd floor were made complete and a new wall constructed on both sides of the staircase of the roof. In the first report of the Special Officer the Special Officer had noted that stocks of stone chips were placed on the roof and that sand, and cement was stacked on the third floor wherein construction works were being carried out by one raj -mistry named Sudarshan who was assisted by one majdoor named Rati, He also noted that some other persons were working within the room on the third floor. The report of the Special Officer categorically states that he had found, plastering with sand and cement going on at the time 'f his visit by the raj -mistry with the help of the majdoor and he recorded that the mixture of sand and cement with water was found at the landing of the third floor, all of which facts established beyond doubt that works were being carried on at the suit premises altering the status quo directed contrary to the order of this Court. I do not accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents who inter alia contended that the order of 23rd June, 1983 which is alleged to be violated did not prevent plastering works from being carried on on the third floor and merely prohibited constructions being made thereat. The decision cited by him namely is of no assistance as that was a case where the interpretation of the word 'building' and 're -building' wad considered in the light of the scheme of the Punjab Rent Legislation nor is the decision reported in : AIR1958Cal474 Dulal Chandra v. V. Sukumar also of any assistance. It cannot be contended that the order passed, by this Court on the 23rd June, 1983, is an order of a contingent character which could not be adhered to nor (was it) submitted, that the order is not clear and/or specific. In any event it is not the case of the respondents that they did not understand the order of 23rd June, 1983. Nor did they challenge the same as being ambiguous and/or vague. It is pertinent to note that the case of the respondent throughout had been that there was no violation of the order inasmuch as the entire construction work at the site had been completed prior to the institution of the plaintiff's suit and prior to obtaining the order of 23rd June, 1983. To substantiate the case of the respondents in fact certain documents, namely, the order of the Assessment Department of the Corporation of Calcutta dated 11th June, 1983 and the Notice of the Calcutta Corporation for Unauthorised construction dated 24.6.1983 signed by the District Building Surveyor on the 8th July 1983 were made over to Court to show that the entire construction works were completed prior to the institution of the proceedings by the plaintiff. The Notice of the Assessment Department dated 12.9.1983 increasing the annual value of the premises to Rs. 35,964/ - was also made over to Court. These documents in so far as the Assessment Notice is concerned do not support the respondents' case inasmuch as the Notice of 11th June, 1983 caVegoricolly states that 'portions of the premises were still under construction' as late as on Hth June, 1983. Moreover the Notices for Unauthorised Construction do not indicate that the entire third floor was completed and; merely indicate deviations from the plan submitted, which had been uauthorisedly constructed without sanction of the Corporation, in fact it is significant that no certificate of completion of works was relied upon, which would have been available, if the case of the respondents that the entire building works were completed to the knowledge of the Corporation was true and reliable. Be that as it may, it is apparent that by the order da*ed 23rd June, 1983 the Court expressly directed that so far as new constructions were concerned there would be status quo as of that day and the defence that plastering of walls and/or putting up of 'new walls' on both sides of the staircase as recorded in the minutes of the Special Officer who visited the suit premises on 29th July, 1983 are not viola' -ion of the order is unacceptable. The said facts clearly indicate that the order of this Court was violated with impunity and with knowledge of the same. In so far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is nowhere said in the affldavit -in -oppo -sition that he did not understand the import of the order.

(3.) I accept the contention of Mr. Protap Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the order passed is clear and specific which was clearly understood by the respondents and inasmuch as none of them came forward with a case that they did not understand the order and it must be found that there was contumacious disregard to the order passed. The contentions of Mr. Protap Chatterjee learned advocate for the petitioner are more sound and are required to be accepted. The respondents have not only attempted to shield themselves by alleging that no construction works were made to further impress upon the Court that the status quo order had not been violated which is contradicted by both the minutes of the Special Officer which have been made part of the proceedings and; which belie their case that no works were undertaken at the suit premises.