Vishal Goods Trans. Company and Another vs Maghraj Mathur and Others

Heard leaned counsel for the Appellants.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge committed serious error of law by issuing direction as has been issued in para 15, i.e. in operative part of the impugned judgment dated 15.4.2010. The learned Single Judge granted two months'' time to Appellants to vacate the suit premises inspite of the fact that the Appellants did not seek time. While granting time, the learned Single Judge also issued directions to the Appellants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondents within a period of two months and directed to pay mesne profit and in case of failure to do so, the landlord shall not only be entitled to execute the decree/order in accordance with the provisions of Rent Control Law but shall also be free to approach this Court under contempt jurisdiction.

According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants this gave liberty to the Respondents to initiate the contempt proceeding against the Appellants which otherwise they could not nave initiate and could have only executed the decree/order of the Rent Tribunal. It is submitted that there was no occasion for the observation of the learned Single Judge that in addition to the execution of the decree, the Respondents will be free to approach this Court under contempt jurisdiction.

We considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants and found that the apprehension as projected by the Appellants is not well founded because of the plain and simple reason that the learned Single Judge was conscious of the fact that the order/decree is executable and, therefore, after taking note of this position, the learned Single Judge observed only that the Respondents will be free to approach this Court in contempt jurisdiction obviously by filing contempt petition and that is only observation of the court which amounts to making it obvious that in a situation when a case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings then the Respondents will be free to approach this Court for taking action under Contempt of Courts Act/of court''s jurisdiction. The contempt law is not akin to execution as the contempt law is penal in nature whereas execution only executes the order passed by the court which may not contain any penal consequences or punishment in contempt jurisdiction. One is required to allege and prove material facts for initiation of the contempt proceedings as well as for punishing contemnor. The jurisdiction in execution in decree/order vis a vis the contempt jurisdiction are entirely different. It is required to be noticed that the order impugned does not amount to holding the Appellants liable for contempt of court automatically and without allegation and proof of sufficient and material particulars, cannot deny opportunity to Appellants to show the court concerned that he has not committed any contempt of court.

So far as giving of time of two months to the Appellants for vacating the suit premises is concerned, that is the beneficial order and if has been passed without any prayer of the Appellants, then the party is free not to take the benefit of that time limit and can handover the possession of the property to the beneficiary before that period. The Appellants has No. just reason to raise grievance against such beneficial order.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants tried to assail the finding of fact recorded in the impugned orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal but we are not inclined to entertain this appeal on question of fact.

In view of above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence this special appeal is dismissed.