R. ESSA Vs. N.M. JAMAL AND SONS, REPRESENTED BY NAZIR NOOR ALI JAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the respondent in S.A. No. 431 of 1972 for punishing the appellant therein for contempt of Court. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the respondent in the contempt application has committed contempt by disobeying the decree in S.A. No. 431 of 1972. The respondent, who is the appellant in S.A. No. 431 of 1972, was granted three months time to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property. The said order was passed on 2nd May, 1974. The respondent ought to have delivered possession of the property to the petitioner on or before 2nd August, 1974. But the respondent did not deliver possession of the property. Instead, the respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 5654 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court (VI Assistant) Madras, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to the property under the seventh defendant in the suit, Sri Sundareswara Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree in O.S. No. 3809 of 1966. The respondent herein filed also an application for interim injunction in LA. No. 15116 of 1974 in that suit for a temporary injunction, and has obtained an interim relief also According to the petitioner, the respondent is bound to deliver possession of the suit property as per the direction of this Court contained in the judgment in S.A. No. 431 of 1972. The claim of the respondent as a tenant under the Devasthanam had been negatived by the Courts below and this Court also observed in S.A. No. 431 of 1972 that Exhibit A -11 shows that the respondent is not a tenant under the Devasthanam. Hence, according to the petitioner, the respondent is estopped from setting up the same case once over. To substantiate the case of contempt, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent has deliberately flouted the directions of this Court by not delivering the property to the petitioner on or before 2nd August, 1974 and also by approaching the City Civil Court for an injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree in O.S. No. 3809 of 1966, out of which S.A. No. 431 of 1972 arose. This attitude and act of the respondent, according to the petitioner amounts to clear contempt.

(2.) THE respondent filed a counter stating that there is neither a prohibitory nor a mandatory order of this Court to entitle the petitioner to move for contempt. When a decree is passed by a Court for possession and time is granted to the judgment debtor, its effect is only to stay the execution of the decree for the period covered by the order of the Court. Further in O.S. No. 3809 of 1966 the landlord of the premises in question was not a party. The respondent further alleged that he entered into a direct tenancy with the landlord, viz., Sri Sundareswaraj Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer in respect of the demised premises and in view of that tenancy there was nothing left for the petitioner to enforce as against the respondent in relation to the demised premises. O.S. No. 5654 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, defendants 1 to 5 in the prior suit O.S. No. 3809 of 1966 and the landlord, for a declaration that the respondent is entitled to continue in possession of the demised premises, viz., No. 315/318, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras -1, as the tenant of the Devasthanam and for a consequent injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree in O.S. No. 3809 of 1966 against the respondent, as the latter had be come ineffective and also for a declaration that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(3.) THUS it is clearly seen from the facts narrated above, that the contention of the respondent that the has become directly a tenant under he Devasthanam, which he has put forth on the previous occasions, had been negatived and the prayer for possession made by the petitioner was granted even as against the respondent. The respondent, taking advantage of the fact that the Devasthanam, the landlord, was rot a party to the prior suit O.S. No. 3809 of 1966 has filed O.S. No. 5654 of 1974 in the City Civil Court for a declaration that he is entitled to be in possession of the suit property as tenant under Sri Sundareswarar Devasthanam and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree in O.S. No. 3809 of 1966. There is also 3 prayer therein for a declaration that the respondent, in any event, is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and without seeking an order of eviction under the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner cannot evict the respondent.