Rekha Devi & Ors vs Lalit Kumar

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

On 11.09.2018, this Court while determining the application for mesne profit that was filed by the petitioners-applicants, had determined the use and occupation charges at Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the decree passed by the learned trial Court i.e. 10.10.2014 upto 10.09.2018 and arrears to be paid by 10.10.2018 and thereafter arrears w.e.f. September, 2018 to December, 2018 were directed to be paid by 31.12.2018. Lastly, the respondent/non-applicant was directed to ensure that he continues to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month by depositing the same in the Registry of this Court by 10th of every month till the disposal of the appeal.

Failure of the respondent to deposit the use and occupation charges, the petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition.

What is more surprising is that the respondent in spite of pendency of this petition, did not even care to deposit a single penny despite indulgence being repeatedly shown by this Court as is evident from the order sheet(s).

When the Court sought to take stern action against the respondent on 11.12.2019, he undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards mesne profits i.e. use and occupation charges and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards arrears of such charges.

Even despite undertaking, the respondent has failed to honour the same and even till date not a single penny has admittedly been deposited by the respondent towards the use and occupation charges as determined on 11.09.2018 or even as per the undertaking given in the open Court by the respondent on 11.12.2019.

In such circumstances, the respondent was asked to show cause why he be not punished and prosecuted for contempt and since there is no reasonable explanation offered by the respondent, therefore, this Court has no option but to convict and sentence the respondent for deliberately and willfully committing the contempt of this Court by not only violating the orders passed by this Court on 11.09.2018 in CMP No. 1301 of 2018 in RSA No. 29 of 2018 but also having deliberately and willfully violated the undertaking furnished in the open Court on 11.12.2019.

Heard on quantum of sentence.

Learned counsel for the respondent-contemnor would argue that since the respondent-contemnor is the sole bread earner of the family, a lenient view may be taken.

I do not find any substance in such contention as the respondent despite repeated assurances has only violated the orders passed by this Court. It is nearly two and a half year that the orders directing the respondent-contemnor to pay use and occupation charges had been passed. If the respondent-contemnor had been serious enough or had slightest respect for the orders of the Court, he would at least deposit/pay some amount till date, which clearly shows that from the very beginning the respondent-contemnor had no intention to honour the undertaking that was furnished by him out of his own volition or complied with the orders passed by this Court.

In the given facts and circumstances, no leniency can be shown in favour of the respondent-contemnor. Accordingly, he is ordered to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment at the first instance for six months.

The custody of the respondent-contemnor is handed over to C. Divakar No. 693 and C. Devinder No. 702. Registry is directed to prepare jail warrants accordingly.

It needs to be mentioned that respondent-contemnor was present in majority of the hearing(s) before this Court and had been fully aware/conscious of the orders so passed from time to time. The respondent-contemnor still did not choose to comply with the same and only choose to replace his counsel which too had been provided to him through legal-aid by showing undue sympathy and indulgence.

Copy dasti.