Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.C.C NO.657 OF 2020 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S.GAYATHRI
WIFE OF N.S. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
N.S.KUMAR
S/O A.NAGABHUSHANA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
SL. NOS.1 AND 2 ARE BOTH
R/AT 4104, SOBHA VALLEY VIEW
LEGAL ROAD
OPP. LEGACY CONVENTION HALL
HOSKEREHALLI
BANGALORE – 85 ... COMPLAINANTS (BY SHRI AJAY RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND: DR.S.N.SINGH SON OF N.K.SINGH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT No.561, 12TH CROSS J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU – 560 076
... ACCUSED (BY SHRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) --- THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO ENQUIRE,
- 2 - TAKE ACTION AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEYING THE ORDERS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 18.11.2020 IN W.P No.6342/2020 AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainants, the learned counsel appearing for the accused as well as the accused who are personally present through video conferencing.
The complainants are the plaintiffs in a suit filed in the City Civil Court at Bengaluru and the accused is the defendant. The suit is filed by the complainants for seeking a decree of eviction against the accused and for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,39,900/- towards the arrears of rent along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit. It is pleaded in the suit filed by the complainants that they are the owners of the schedule premises consisting of a residential house comprising of 2 halls, 1 dining room, 4 bedrooms with attached bathrooms, 1 study room, 1 common bath-cum-toilet, 1 kitchen, 1 prayer room, 1 store room, 1 utility area, 1 balcony, 1 garage, 1 servants’ quarters, 1 sump and 2 overhead tanks, measuring around 3200 sq. feet situated at 12th Cross, II
- 3 - Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru. The schedule premises was let out by the complainants to the accused on 1st July 2009 for a monthly rent of Rs.27,000/-. The averments made in the plaint are that the accused was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.3,39,900/- as on 1st October 2016 which is the date of filing of the suit. An application, being I.A No.3 was in the suit filed by the complainants seeking a direction against the accused to deposit the admitted monthly rent of Rs.27,000/- from January 2017 and to continue payment of the same. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 20th September 2019 directed the accused to deposit the rent from January 2017 in the Court. It is this order which was subjected to a challenge by the accused by filing Writ Petition No.6342 of 2020. The said petition came up before this Court on 18th November 2020 and was disposed of. The said order reads thus: “The matter having been argued vociferously at length, now both the sides are fairly in agreement with the suggestion of this Court that the impugned order not being faultsome, should be sustained and that the amount payable thereunder should be paid by the petitioner in three equalized installments as under:
The first installment shall be paid on or before 30.11.2020; the second installment shall be paid on or before 15.01.2021 and the last installment shall be paid on or before 15.03.2021; this apart, the rent accruing due in terms of the
- 4 - impugned order shall be continued to be paid on regular basis.
It is made clear that the above arrangement being made in terms of the undertaking of the petitioner, if breach is committed, the same not only results into his immediate expulsion from the suit premises but attracts contempt proceedings at the hands of this Court; the breach will also result in petitioner’s defence being struck off and a decree as prayed for in the plaint shall being entered forthwith.
However, if compliance is done, the rights of the parties would be adjudicated by the Court below by expeditious trail & disposal off the subject suit.
Writ petition is disposed off, keeping open all other contentions.
Now, no costs.”
(underline supplied)
Thus, the accused has undertaken to pay the arrears of rent payable from January 2017 in 3 equal installments payable on 30th November 2020, 15th January 2021 and 15th March 2021 respectively and to continue to pay the rent accruing due in terms of the interim order on regular basis. The present contempt petition is filed alleging breach of the aforesaid order and the undertaking of the accused.
In paragraph 5 of the contempt petition, it is stated that after the order 20th September 2019 was passed by the Trial
- 5 - Court on I.A No.3, on 10th March 2020, the accused gave an undertaking to the Trial Court to make payment of 25% of the arrears. Thereafter, the aforesaid writ petition was filed on 19th March 2020. In the said writ petition, this Court directed the accused to deposit 50% of the admitted arrears as per the order dated 10th March 2020 within two weeks . The accused could not comply with the said order and ultimately, the aforesaid order dated 18th November 2020 was passed by this Court. The allegation in the contempt petition is that after the aforesaid order of this Court, no payment has been made by the accused.
The contempt petition was filed on 9th December 2020. On 15th December 2020, a notice was issued to the accused which was made returnable on 22nd January 2021. The order passed on 22nd January 2021 is very relevant. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said order reads thus:
“2. When we repeatedly asked the accused whether he is willing to pay some amount immediately, he stated that he is not in a position to pay any amount now. Even to show his bona fides, he is not prepared to deposit any amount.
Thus, prima facie, the accused has committed willful breach of the directions contained in paragraph 2 of the order dated 18th November 2020. Moreover, what is recorded in paragraph 2 of the said order constitutes an undertaking by the
- 6 - accused. Therefore, the accused has prima facie committed willful breach of the said undertaking. In paragraph 3 of the said order, the accused was put to notice that any breach committed by him will attract contempt proceedings at the hands of this Court.
The accused will be tried on the next date on the basis of the above allegations/charge.
List the petition on 18th February 2021 for hearing.”
(underline supplied)
Thus, by the said order, the accused was put to the notice of the charge on the basis of which he will be tried in this contempt petition. Thereafter, as per the order dated 22nd January 2021, the contempt petition was listed on 18th February 2021. The order dated 18th February 2021 reads thus: “The learned counsel appearing for the accused states that yesterday, the accused has sent him an e-mail informing him that due to the sickness of his mother, he is unable to attend today. Even a copy of the said e-mail is not placed on record.
Notwithstanding a very clear order passed on 22nd January, 2021, the accused has not sought exemption. Today, when we tried to invite the attention of the learned counsel for the accused to the order of which breach is alleged, initially he pleaded that he has not received a complete copy of the contempt petition. When we pointed out that this grievance was not made on the last date, he
- 7 - accepted that he has a copy of the order dated 18th November, 2020.
Even as of today, not a single farthing has been paid by the accused in terms of the said order. As the proceeding for civil contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding, today we do not propose to dispose of the same in the absence of the accused. We direct the accused to personally remain present through Video Conferencing on 25th February, 2021 at 10.30 a.m. If the accused fails to remain present on that day, his presence shall be secured by issuing a non-bailable warrant.”
(underline supplied)
We may note here that on 17th February 2021, the learned counsel for the accused made an application for exemption on the basis of an email sent by the accused stating that his mother has been admitted to a hospital.
Today both the accused and his learned counsel are present through video conferencing. When we made a query to the learned counsel for the accused whether the accused is in a position to comply with the order of which the breach is alleged, the answer given by him in presence of the accused who is sitting next to him is that he will pay after four weeks. But he was unable to state the outer limit of time within which the entire amount will be paid. We may note here that the accused has not filed any reply to the contempt petition. He
- 8 - did not seek time to file a reply. Therefore, when we heard the accused on the sentence, he stated that he is 68 years old and his mother is supposed to undergo a heart surgery. He stated that he may be granted ten weeks’ time. When we asked the accused about the sentence, he states that his present age is 68 years and his mother is likely to undergo heart surgery and hence, leniency may be shown.
We have considered the submissions. Perusal of the order of the Trial Court dated 20th September 2019 will show that the accused did not dispute that he was a tenant of the schedule premises. A detailed finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 13 onwards in which he has noted that in the written statement, the accused has admitted the fact that he is a tenant in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.27,000/-. What was denied was the plea of the complainants that the accused is liable to pay the enhanced rent after 11 months. The learned Trial Judge noted that there is a serious dispute whether the accused is liable to pay the enhanced rent after 11 months but, there was no dispute that the accused was liable to pay the monthly rent of Rs.27,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court while passing the order dated 20th September 2019 did
- 9 - not direct the accused to pay arrears of rent payable upto filing of the suit. The direction was issued to pay the admitted rent at the rate of Rs.27,000/- from January 2017. The direction was to deposit the arrears from January 2017 till the date of the order and continue to deposit the monthly rent even thereafter. As stated earlier, the suit was filed in the year 2016.
While we consider all this, we must note that the defendant/accused is admittedly the tenant of a valuable house property (schedule premises) situated at 12th Cross, II Phase, J.P Nagar, Bengaluru having an area of 3200 sq. ft. As noted earlier, the house consists of 2 halls, 1 dining room, 4 bedrooms with attached toilets, 1 kitchen and various other facilities including a servants quarters and a garage. It is not the case of the accused that from January 2017 onwards, he has paid a single farthing towards the rent.
The order of which breach is alleged passed by this Court on 18th November 2020 is based on the agreement between the parties which was arrived at before the Court and therefore, leniency was shown to the accused by granting him 3 equated installments payable on 30th November 2020, 15th January 2021 and 15th March 2021. Moreover, the said order
- 10 - notes that what is recorded therein is based on the undertaking of the accused. Paragraph 3 of the said order dated 18th November 2020 puts the accused to a specific notice that as the order is based on his undertaking, any breach will attract contempt proceedings at the hands of this Court.
Thus, the scenario which emerges can be summarized as under: (a) Admittedly, the accused is a tenant of the complainants in respect of a valuable house situated in Bengaluru measuring 3200 sq. ft. which was admittedly let out at monthly rent of Rs.27,000/- to the accused;
(b) The accused has not paid the rent from January 2017;
(c) Though this Court granted concession under the order dated 18th November 2020 based on the undertaking of the accused to pay the arrears by 3 installments, as stated above, the accused has not paid a single farthing;
(d) The accused is a Central Government retired Gazetted Officer;
(e) Even after the contempt notice was issued and the contempt petition was adjourned on two occasions, not a
- 11 - single farthing is paid by the accused though he is occupying a valuable property in the City of Bengaluru measuring 3200 sq. ft;
(f) Even today, the accused is not making a definite statement that he will pay a substantial amount immediately and the balance amount will be paid within a specified reasonable time;
(g) In paragraph 5 of the written statement filed by the accused before the Trial Court, the accused has accepted that he is running a pharmaceutical firm under the proprietorship and he is an income tax assessee.
Considering the aforesaid facts which are admitted and are borne out from the record, this is a case of a gross and willful breach of the order passed by this Court as well as the undertaking given by the accused to the Court. We may note here that from Annexure-E, it appears that the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed by directing the defendant/accused to pay the arrears as well as the damages.
As noted in the order dated 22nd January 2021, we repeatedly suggested to the accused to pay some amount
- 12 - immediately. However, he has not offered to pay a single farthing. All this shows that the accused has no respect for law and he wants to willfully defy the order of this Court and the undertaking given to the Court. There is no material placed on record to show that he is unable to pay even a reasonable amount.
Under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a person who commits contempt can be punished with simple imprisonment for the period which may extend to six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- or both. The accused has shown no remorse. He has not filed any reply to the contempt petition and he has made no attempt to tender an apology in writing. Therefore, in a normal course, this would have been a fit case to penalise the accused by sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. However, considering the fact that the age of the present accused is 68 years, we show leniency by sentencing him to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- . We propose to direct that the sentence will remain under suspension for a period of eight weeks from today. If the accused pays or deposits the entire amount due and payable up to date as per the order of this Court dated 18th
- 13 - November 2020, he will be entitled to seek recall/revocation of the order of sentence.
We, therefore, pass the following order: (i) We hold that the accused has committed a willful breach of the directions contained in the order dated 18th November 2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6342 of 2020 as well as of the undertaking given by him which is noted in the said order;
(ii) The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) within a period of one month from today;
(iii) The sentence of imprisonment shall stand suspended till 23rd April 2021. If the accused pays the entire amount payable upto date as per the order dated 18th November 2020 before 23rd April 2021, he will be entitled to apply to this Court for revocation/recall of the order imposing substantive sentence;
- 14 - (iv) The contempt petition is disposed of.
(v) The contempt petition shall be listed on 23rd April 2021 at 10.30 a.m for Orders before the first Court. The accused shall personally remain present in the Court on that day.
(vi) As observed earlier, in the event the accused makes compliances he will be entitled to move this Court for revocation/recall of substantive sentence.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE
AHB