http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 10729 2000

PETITIONER: MADAN LAL GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAVINDER KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/12/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, K.G.Balakrishna

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     S.L.P.  (C) NO.  10729/2000

     In this petition the petitioner is calling in question an  order  passed by the High Court in a  Revision  Petition arising  out  of a proceeding under the Delhi  Rent  Control Act.   The Rent Controller refused to grant leave to contest the  eviction  petition  filed  by the  respondent  for  his bonafide   need.   The  question  as   to  the   extent   of accommodation  and  the  requirement of  the  respondent  is dependent  on actual facts arising in the case.  Inasmuch as the  Rent Controller as well as the High Court have examined the  matter and concluded against the petitioner, we fail to understand as to how we can interfere with the decision made by   the  High  Court  affirming   the  order  of  the  Rent Controller.  However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought  to rely upon two decisions of this Court in  Santosh Devi  Soni  v.   Chand Kiran, JT 2000 (3) SC 397,  and  Liaq Ahmed & Ors.  v.  Shri Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, JT 2000 (5) SC 611. Neither of these two decisions set down any principle of law so as to call for interference by us.  In these two cases on the  facts  arising  in the case certain  orders  have  been passed  by  this Court.  Learned counsel for the  petitioner sought  to raise an additional ground relying upon a  letter issued  by  the Director (Town Planning) on 29.06.2000  that the  property  in question in respect of which  eviction  is sought  for is included in the areas which have already been declared  as Slum Areas under Section 3 of the Slum  Areas (Improvement  & Clearance) Act, 1956.  He further  contended that  Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 stands in the way of the landlord for evicting the tenant  without obtaining previous permission in writing  of the  competent authority.  This Court in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v.   Kasturi Lal, AIR 1977 SC 265, held that the Delhi  Rent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Control Act wherein Chapter III-A and provisions of Sections 14-A,  25-A,  25-B, 25-C and 54 have been inserted  in  1975 later  to the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act  and, therefore,  provisions  of the Delhi Rent Act would  prevail over  the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act.  In view of the decision in Sarwan Singh & Anr.  v.  Kasturi Lal case (supra) the contention raised by the petitioner cannot stand and the same stands rejected.

     Therefore,  we  find no reason to interfere  with  the order made by the High Court and dismiss the petition.

     CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.  249/2000 IN S.L.P.  (C) NO.  10729/2000

     When   the   special  leave   petition  came  up   for consideration  at  the  stage of preliminary  hearing,  this Court, while directing issue of notice to the respondents of the  case  also granted ad interim stay of execution of  the decree  for  possession  in the meantime.  But even  so,  it appears,  respondent No.  1 with the help of respondent  No. 2  made  an  attempt to enforce the decree contrary  to  the order  of this Court.  The counter affidavit filed on behalf of  respondent  No.  1 is rather astonishing and is set  out hereunder:-

     I  submit  that  the Petitioner was granted  stay  of eviction  on  24.7.2000, yet he made no effort to  submit  a certified copy of the stay order in the Court of the learned Rent  Controller or serve a copy on me although he is living in the same building.  Therefore, when the Petitioner showed only a photocopy of the proceedings dated 24.7.2000 (not the stay  order), I expressed my doubt and showed reluctance  to believe  that the copy is a genuine one.  Therefore, I asked the  Contemner No.  2 about the truthfulness and validity of the  stay  as  he  is  supposed to  have  knowledge  of  the proceedings  in such cases.  The Contemner No.2 told me that he  is  not  bound by the orders of any other Court  as  his concerned  Court has given him the warrant of possession  to get  the  eviction of the suit premises.  Contemner  No.   2 further  told me that it is the mandatory duty of the person having  a  stay order to inform the decree holder within  10 days  of  receiving  the  stay order  and  to  intimate  the concerned  Court  within  30  days.  As the  J.D.   had  not complied  with  this mandatory duty, Contemner No.   2  said that  he is not bound to obey any order of any other  Court. Contemner   No.   2  further  told   that  the   J.D.    had deliberately  avoided  to  intimate  any  of  the  concerned parties.  In view of the above facts stated by Contemner No. 2  to me, I asked the Contemner No.  2 to deliver the vacant possession  of  the suit premises as per the orders  of  the concerned Court.

     This  prevaricating  stand taken by the respondent  is rather shocking.  Whatever be the merits of the case when an interim  stay  is granted by this Court all authorities  and persons  are bound by the orders made by it and there should be  implicit  obedience to the same;  and, if there  is  any violation  thereof, the same would result in erosion of  the system  itself.   Therefore, the explanation offered by  the first  respondent is not at all satisfactory to mitigate the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

charge made against him.

     However, it appears to us that the first contemner has acted at the guidance of the second contemner who is villian of  the piece.  At any rate at the intervention of the third contemner  the  actual  possession of the property  was  not taken from the applicant and good sense prevailed.  In these circumstances,  we  think, it is appropriate to close  these proceedings  subject  to  Contemner No.1 and 2  pay  to  the applicant  a  sum of Rs.  10,000/- each by way of  exemplary cost  and these proceedings come to an end on payment of the same.   So  far  as the third contemner  is  concerned,  the averments made in the petition are not very clear as to what his  role has been.  However, one thing is clear, that it is only  at  his intervention that the applicant has  not  been deprived  of the possession of the property.  Therefore,  we discharge  him  and the proceedings against him shall  stand dropped.