Kamla Devi Vij vs Karanvir Dhir

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Does renting out a premises amount to alienation or not ?

Davinder Kumar and Ram Kumar sons of Sakhi Chand Dhir had filed a suit against Karanvir and others. Smt. Kamla Devi Vijpetitioner is one of the sisters of Davinder Kumar and Karanvir Singh. She is arrayed as one of the respondents in the RSA arising out of the suit filed by Davinder Kumar and Ram Kumar sons of Sakhi Chand Dhir.

A civil miscellaneous application bearing No. 3879C of 1996 was filed in the RSA. Notice was issued to Karanvir and others appellantsrespondents through their counsel for October 1996, directing them not to alienate the property in dispute. Copy of the order is dated September 17, 1986 Annexure P1. This order was made absolute on October 04, 1996, copy of which is Annexure P2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the stay order, Karanvir respondent has given on rent one of the shops which are the subject matter of RSA. It has been let out to Amarjit Singh son of Shri Balwant Singh on July 17, 1999. By doing so, the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the stay orders dated September 17, 1998 (Annexure P1) and October 04, 1996 (Annexure P2). Hence this petition under Section 12 read with Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act (In short `the Act'').

The respondent, in his reply in the form of affidavit, admits the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal No. 1570 of 1986, the order passed in the Civil Misc. No. 3789C of 1996, but it is pleaded that he has not transferred ownership of the property. He, in fact, has simply given the property on rent. The word `alienation'' denotes transfer of property by one person to another and imports material transfer of title. This petition has been filed simply to cause harassment and humiliation to the answering respondent. Petitioner along with Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Tarlok Chand, the attorney of the petitioner has leased out the land situated in village Bhag Budda, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala which is the subject matter of the RSA vide lease agreement dated 10.3.1999.

I have heard Shri Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Naresh Parbhakar, learned counsel for the respondent.

As per order Annexure P1, respondent (appellant in the RSA) was directed not to alienate the property in dispute. The order Annexure P1 passed in C.M. No. 3789C of 1996 was made absolute vide the subsequent order Annexure P2. Now, it is to be seen whether the leasing out the property or giving it on rent tentamounts to alienation.

The dictionary meaning of the word `alienation'' as given in Webster''s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, is as under :

"1. in law, a transfer of title, or a legal conveyance of property to another.

the state of being alienated.

a withdrawing or estrangement, as of the heart or affections.

delirium; mental derangement; insanity."

The meaning of word `alienor'' in the said Dictionary is given as `a person who transfers the ownership of property''.

Thus, as per dictionary meaning, a person who transfers ownership of the property is alienor. Therefore, a lease which is not a transfer of ownership and title, cannot be termed as `alienation''. Thus, there is no violation of the orders Annexure P1 and P2 whereby alienation of the property has been stayed and not leasing out thereof.

In Pitamber Govinda Bhavsar v. Abdul Gafur Abdul Rajak and others, AIR 1972 Bombay 43, a somewhat similar situation arose and it was observed that "alienation" means transfer of ownership of property to another person. The word applies to absolute conveyances of immoveable property and imports an actual transfer of title. It does not include a lease."

This Court while deciding a contempt petition bearing COCP No. 114 of 1999 Annexure R1 has also observed that there is a clear distinction between `mere transfer'' and `alienation''. In the absence of any alienation, it cannot be termed that there is any contempt of court. It was a case where the property was mortgaged and one of the terms of the mortgage deed was that the bank who was a mortgagee had a right to sell the property in case the amount of the mortgage is not paid. There also the respondent was restrained from alienating any part of the property in dispute.

Thus, in the given case in hand also, there is no transfer of ownership in favour of the another person, rather the property on rent of another person, whereas, the ownership and the title remains in the person giving it on rent.

In view of the aforesaid, no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent is made out. This petition is consequently dismissed. Rule against the respondent is discharged.