- (1.) This Contempt Petition has been filed by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Port Trust'), who was the original respondent in SLP(C) No.26541 of 2005, against the respondents-contemnors for disobeying the order of this Court dated 27.01.2006, whereby this Court while dismissing the special leave petition granted one year's time to the respondents herein to vacate the premises subject to the undertaking furnished by them.
(2.) Before adverting to the legal issues, brief facts which led to the filing of this Contempt Petition need to be enumerated. The petitioner is the statutory corporation incorporated under the Major Port Trust (Amendment) Act, 1974. The Port Trust leased out the suit premises admeasuring 484.95 sq. mtr. by a lease deed dated 11.07.1944 to one Abdul Majid Haji Sulleman Noorani, predecessors of the leasehold rights of the respondents for a period of ten years commencing from 01.01.1943. As per the petitioner, the respondents are the successors to the said Abdul Majid for the unexpired period of lease. The said lease expired on 31.12.1952 and has not been renewed; but the respondents continued to occupy the premises. The Port Trust filed eviction suit seeking the respondent-company to vacate the suit premises and for possession and had obtained decree against the respondent-company in LE & C Suit No.355/481 of 1978 decided on 25.01.1990. The respondent-company has preferred the appeal No.181/1990 which was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay vide order dated 05.12.2003. The respondent has preferred a Writ Petition(C) No.4722/2004 before the Bombay High Court and the High Court has dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 03.10.2005. The respondents have preferred special leave petition before this Court which was dismissed by this Court on 27.01.2006. However, this Court has accepted the respondents prayer to give one year time from the date of the order i.e. 27.01.2006. The said order reads as under:- "Heard. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for some time to vacate the premises in question. Having heard the learned Solicitor General appearing for the caveator/respondent, one year's time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question subject to its filing the usual undertaking to this effect in this Court within four weeks from today." Pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2006, the respondent No.1-Nikhil Gupta, Director of respondent No.2-Company, filed an affidavit of undertaking.
(3.) Inspite of the undertaking furnished by them before this Court in February, 2006, the respondents till date have not vacated the premises. In the meantime, petitioner-Port Trust had filed an Execution Application bearing No.567/2010 on 20.07.2010 before Small Causes Court and notice was issued to the respondents. The bailiff of the Court, P.A. Gole made an attempt to serve on the respondents, but it was found that contemnors have changed their addresses. Thereafter, thrice the bailiff alongwith the Office Inspector visited the new addresses and found the contemnors' offices were not even located in the premises and hence the notice could not be served upon the respondents.;