- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Pyari (Smt) v. Jagdish Lal
Factual and Procedural Background
A decree of eviction was passed in Suit No. 368 of 1969 by the Additional Munsif, Shahjahanpur against the present respondent. The decree was affirmed on appeal by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1974 on 11 December 1974, and again by the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 4 of 1975.
The respondent then filed SLP (Civil) No. 10620 of 1985 before the Supreme Court. On 11 February 1986 the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP but stayed execution of the eviction decree for three months subject to four conditions, including filing an undertaking, payment of arrears, future compensation, and refraining from inducting third parties.
The respondent neither filed the required undertaking nor complied with the payment and possession conditions. Consequently, the landlord (applicant) initiated the present contempt petition. Notice of contempt was issued on 6 May 1991.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent’s non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s conditional order of 11 February 1986 constitutes contempt of court.
- Whether the landlord’s proper remedy lies exclusively in executing the eviction decree or whether contempt jurisdiction can be invoked to secure compliance.
- Whether the applicant has locus standi in view of assertions that the Municipal Board of Shahjahanpur is the true owner of the premises.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Landlord's) Arguments
- The respondent wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court’s order by failing to file an undertaking, pay arrears, pay future compensation, and vacate the premises within three months.
Respondent's Arguments
- The landlord’s remedy is to execute the eviction decree, not to invoke contempt jurisdiction.
- An order under the U.P. Public Premises Act establishes the Municipal Board of Shahjahanpur as owner, depriving the applicant of locus standi.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 418; AIR 1989 SC 2285 | The Supreme Court may, even without an explicit undertaking, issue directions to ensure compliance with its conditional orders where a party has enjoyed the benefit of such orders. | Used as authority to direct the trial court to deliver vacant possession to the landlord despite the absence of a formal finding of contempt. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the respondent had not violated a “specific direction” in the strict technical sense that would warrant a finding of contempt. However, it rejected the respondent’s contention that the landlord must rely solely on ordinary execution proceedings. The Court reasoned that:
- The respondent obtained the benefit of a three-month stay of eviction only on the basis of explicit conditions set by the Court.
- Failing to enforce those conditions would undermine the integrity of the Court’s own orders.
- The principle in Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions to secure compliance, even when contempt is not formally established.
Consequently, the Court opted for a pragmatic remedy: ordering immediate delivery of possession through the local trial court, with police assistance if necessary, while expressly reserving the landlord’s right to pursue arrears, rent, and mesne profits.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The Supreme Court directed the learned Additional Munsif, Shahjahanpur, to secure and hand over vacant possession of Shop No. 289, Bazar Bahadurganj, Shahjahanpur, to the landlord on or before 15 December 1991, using police aid if required. No costs were awarded.
Implications: Although the Court stopped short of convicting the respondent for contempt, it exercised its authority to enforce compliance with its prior conditional order. The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s willingness to ensure its orders are not rendered illusory, but it sets no new substantive precedent beyond applying the principle recognised in Ganpat Ram Rajkumar. The landlord remains free to pursue recovery of rent and mesne profits under ordinary legal processes.
S. Mohan, J.— The special leave petition was filed by the respondent against the order of eviction passed in the Suit No. 368 of 1969 on the file of the Additional Munsif, Shahjahanpur. That was appealed against before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1974. By the judgment dated December 11, 1974 the decree of eviction was confirmed. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments, Second Appeal No. 4 of 1975 was preferred to the High Court of Allahabad which was also dismissed.
2. SLP (C) No. 10620 of 1985 was preferred to this Court. In order dated February 11, 1986 this Court passed the following directions:
“Upon hearing counsel, the Court dismissed the special leave petition but directed that the order of eviction shall not be executed on or before three months from today on the condition that the petitioner files an undertaking in this Court within three weeks from today to the following effect:
(1) That the petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before three months from today.
(2) That the petitioner will pay to respondent arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today.
(3) That the petitioner will pay to respondent future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the tenth day of every month.
(4) That the petitioner will not induct any other person in the suit premises.
The Court further directed that in default of compliance with any one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as required within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith.”
3. For the disobedience of the above order, in neither filing the undertaking nor paying the rent and failure to hand over the possession, the present petition for contempt has been preferred. Notice was ordered on the contempt petition on May 6, 1991 returnable on July 24, 1991.
4. The counter-affidavit has been filed inter alia contending that the remedy of the applicant in the contempt petition (respondent in the special leave petition) would be to execute the decree and not come by way of contempt. Besides, an order under the U.P Public Premises Act had been passed against the applicant. Therefore, the owner of the premises is Municipal Board of Shahjahanpur. Hence the applicant has no locus standi to maintain the petition.
5. Before us the same arguments as raised in the counter are reiterated.
6. The short question, therefore, is whether the respondent is guilty of contempt of court. We have already extracted the order passed by this Court on February 17, 1986. No doubt there is no violation of any specific direction contained in that order. Nevertheless we cannot agree with the respondent that the remedy will be only to execute the decree for eviction. He was granted three months' time on condition that he will file an undertaking and pay the arrears of rent as well as future compensation. Insofar as he derived specific advantages under the order, we are of the view, the proper course will be to issue such directions as were issued in an identical case reported in Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram 1989 Supp (2) SCC 418, AIR 1989 SC 2285. It was observed at page 2288 as under:( and 8)
“This Court dismissed the special leave petition and granted time of six months on the plea that the petitioner firm would file an undertaking. All this could not have happened if the present plaintiffs in the Narnaul suit had not consented or allowed it to be passed or stood by. It is difficult to accept the position that they did not know. In the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that they deliberately did not object to this Court passing the order and thereby allowed the firm to mislead this Court. They are, therefore, bound to see that the order of this Court is complied with. Though contempt is a serious matter and it interferes with the right of those who are found guilty of contempt, no court should allow any party to mislead the court and thereby frustrate its order. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that though perhaps the respondents could not be found guilty of violating any undertaking as there was none, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should ensure compliance with its order dated August 24, 1987 and see that vacant and peaceful possession is given to the applicant in the interest of justice ….
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul (Haryana) to cause to deliver up the vacant possession of the shop situated at Sabji Mandi, Narnaul, District Mohindergarh (Haryana), if necessary with the help of police forthwith. The learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul is also directed to report compliance immediately.”
7. Similar direction in the present case would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, we hereby direct learned Additional Munsif of Shahjahanpur to cause delivery of vacant possession of the shop No. 289 situate in Bazar Bahadurganj, Shahjahanpur under City Board Shahjahanpur to the applicants, if necessary, with the help of police on or before December 15, 1991. The learned Munsif is also directed to report compliance immediately. We make it clear that this order will not prevent or prejudice the applicants from taking any steps for recovery of rent and mesne profits as they are entitled to in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
Alert