PRAGATI STEELS Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case as set up by the petitioners in this petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is that the petitioners are tenants in front portion measuring 15' * 20' of industrial plot No. 166, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Petitioners were running the business in the name and style of M/s Pragati Steels, Respondents 1 and 2, the landlords, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against M/s Pragati Steels and Sh. Om Parkash, inter alia, on the ground of sub-letting and non-payment of rent. The ejectment petition was decided ex parte and an ejectment order dated 4.11.1993 was passed. Respondents 1 and 2 obtained warrant of possession and took possession 21.1.1994. On the same day Sh. Anil Gupta, one of the partners of Petitioner No. 1 moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order and the court of Sh. H.P.S. Mahal, recalled the warrant of possession and stayed the execution proceedings, however, the possession was taken. On January 24, 1994 Baldev Kumar Anr. partner of petitioner No. 1 still moved another application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order. The Rent Controller after perusal of the record ordered restoration of possession on 7.2.1994, pending decision on the application for setting aside ex parte ejectment order Respondents 1 and 2 aggrieved by the order of restoration of possession filed a revision petition hearing No. 536 of 1994, and the same was disposed of on 15.2.1994, vide Annexure P-1 and it was ordered that the application for setting aside the ex parte order be decided within three months. It was also ordered that status quo as to possession shall be maintained regarding the demised premises and the revision petitioner shall not be entitled to part with the possession of the property. The Rent controller after taking evidence disposed of the application for setting aside the ex parte order by order dated 12.5.1994. The application was allowed and the ex parte order dated 4.11.1993 set aside immediately after setting aside of the ex parte order, petitioners moved an application for restoration of possession, which had been taken under order dated 4.11.1993. However, in the meanwhile, respondents 1 and 2 filed Civil Revision 1990 of 1994, against the order dated 12.5.1994 of the Rent Controller setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment. The revision petition was dismissed on 20.7.1994, vide order Annexure P-3. Petitioners again moved an application for restoration of possession, notice of which was given to the counsel for the landlord and ultimately the Rent Controller issued warrant of possession on 16.8.1994 for 1.9.1994. Possession could not be restored as the bailiff reported that the premises were lying locked and that hindrance was created by certain people who came present. The learned Rent Controller against gave direction on 1.9.1994 for restoration of possession. Meanwhile Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 3 filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents 1 and 2. The suit was obviously files of the strength of an agreement to sell executed in his favour by respondents 1 and 2, the landlords, on January 22, 1994. The trial court before whom the suit filed by Gurdev Singh came up for hearing, ordered status quo as to possession on 20.8.1994. However, the said order has since been vacated on 10.5.1995. On appeal by Gurdev Singh, learned District Judge has passed an order dated 15.6.1995, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure R-3/5 with civil misc. 8417-CII of 1995. Respondent No. 3 also moved an application in restoration of possession proceedings for directions to the respondents not to dispossess him from the demised premises as he was in possession of the premises under an agreement to sell dated 22.1.1994, duly signed by respondents 1 and 2, copy Annexure R-3/1. This objection petition was dismissed on 1.9.1994. After the application for setting aside the ex parte order had been allowed, the main ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act was taken up for disposal and the application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated 22.9.1994. The order dismissing the ejectment application has since become final as no appeal or revision has been taken against the said order. It is in the above situation, petitioners filed this petition under section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for not respecting the order of restoration and in not delivering possession of the property dispute the application for ejectment having been dismissed and the order delivering possession having been recalled and possession having been ordered to be restored to them. The further allegation is that the respondents are wilfully, intentionally and deliberately not obeying the order for restoration of possession and they deserve to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) In response to the notice issued, respondents have filed replies. Separate written statements have been filed by respondents 1 and 2, but the stand taken by both of them is identical. After tendering unconditional and unqualified apology, they have stated that the possession was taken on 21.1.1994 after an order of ejectment had been passed. The tenants were in arrears of rent. Respondents 1 and 2 were in need of huge money and demanded financial help from Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 3, who is token of that got executed an agreement to sell of the plot on 22.1.1994. He took possession of the vacant premises i.e, the premises the possession of which had been taken from the petitioners even without the consent of the answering respondents under the garb of an agreement to sell dated 22.1.1994 and that respondents 1 and 2 were not aware of the respondent order passed by the Rent Controller when respondent No. 3 took possession of the premises. Respondent No. 3 after coming to know about the order of restoration of possession shifted his machinery in the premises and approached the court for the grant of permanent injunction. Respondents 1 and 2 thereafter pleaded that they are not in a position to restore the possession to the petitioners and they are inclined to deliver back the possession to the petitioners provided the dispute between them and Gurdev Singh is settled. In the end it has been submitted that they have not violated the order of the court wilfully or deliberately. On merits, the facts alleged by the petitioners have not been broadly disputed by them. As already noticed they are keen to restore the possession but they are unable to do so because of the injunction order granted by the court below in a suit filed by Gurdev Singh against them, in which petitioners have also been impleaded as defendants though on application made by them.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 has also filed reply in the form of an affidavit, wherein it is stated that he has not violated any order passed by the Court and that he has unnecessarily been impleaded. He was not a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He purchased the industrial plot No. 166, Phase II, Chandigarh on 22.1.1994 from respondents 1 and 2 and got part possession of the said plot as per terms and conditions of agreement to sell dated 22.1.1994, copy Annexure R-3/1. Respondent No. 3 got possession of the plot on 22.1.1994 and is carrying on the business in the said portion. Respondents 1 and 2 refused to execute the sale deed in his favour in August, 1994 and threatened to said possess him forcibly. This action of respondents 1 and 2 forced him to file suit for permanent injunction. On merits the allegation has been broadly denied for want of knowledge. It is stated that the suit filed by him is not false and frivolous and that he did not violate any order of the Court. Contempt petition did not relate to him and he was also not a party to the rent proceedings. In the end this respondent while praying that the contempt petition may be dismissed has also tendered unconditional apology.