HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO C.C.NO.1452 OF 2013 Date: 16 -04-2014 Between :
M/s. R.R.Gopal, rep.by its Proprietor Sri Tej Narayan Agarwal (died), s/o.late Sri R.R.Gopal, Aged 70 years, No.22-7-14/24 and 22-7-15/25, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
….. Petitioner And Mr. Khusro Pasha Viyabni, s/o. not known, Chairman the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Haj Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad and others.
…. Respondents This court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1452 OF 2013 ORDER:
W.P.No.22547 of 2013 was instituted alleging that petitioner was served final demand notice dated 17.06.2013 directing the petitioner to produce tenancy documents in respect of the premises occupied by him along with last rental payment receipt and pay the rent together with rental arrears. Petitioner contended that the said notice dated 17.06.2013 was received by him on 25.07.2013. Even before the time granted expired, first respondent was seeking to evict him from the premises. During the course of hearing of the said writ petition, appearance was entered on behalf of third respondent and there was also an intervener. Each one of them claimed that he was in possession. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.07.2013. One week time was granted to the petitioner, third respondent and any other person interested in the property to file their objections on the subject of notice dated 17.06.2013 and on receipt of such objections, the first respondent was directed to fix the date for hearing of the parties concerned to hear them and on considering the objections of the respective parties and material on record to pass a reasoned order within the period of three weeks thereon. It was further directed that till the completion of exercise as directed, no coercive steps should be taken by the first respondent in pursuant to the impugned final demand notice.
2. Petitioner brought out this contempt alleging that contrary to the directions of this Court not to take coercive steps, petitioner was forcibly evicted from the premises on 05.08.2013. It is, thus, alleged that the order of this Court was violated by forcibly evicting the petitioner at the instance of the third respondent.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of first respondent, it is deposed that tenancy was granted to another person on 28.06.2013, whereas this Court passed orders on 30.07.2013. It is further contended that even as per the averments of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in the contempt case, petitioner was evicted much earlier and he filed complaint before the police. This would prima facie show that even before the writ petition was instituted, petitioner was not in possession. In the affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, it is contended that this Court did not recognize or confirm the possession or exclusive possession of the petitioner qua scheduled premises and there was a dispute regarding the claim of possession. The claim of the petitioner of prior possession and subsequent dispossession is emphatically denied. The third respondent in his affidavit averred that the premises was leased out on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- vide proceedings dated 28.6.2013 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was taken as non-refundable deposit. Relying on the pleadings of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is averred that much earlier petitioner filed complaint before the Police Station, Mir Chowk alleging that he was dispossessed by forcibly opening the shutters, would show that much prior to 30.07.2013, he was not in possession of the premises. The tenancy was granted on 28.06.2013, whereas the order was passed by this Court on 30.07.2013.
4. It is therefore contended by all the respondents that there was no violation of order of the Court. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that he was in possession by 30.07.2013 and by taking coercive steps after 30.07.2013, he was evicted.
5. In reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, petitioner admits that on 28.06.2013 lease was granted. Lease was registered on 06.07.2013. Since lease deed does not contain recitals regarding handing over of possession, he claims to be in possession of the premises.
6. Elaborate submissions are made by learned counsels.
7. The pleadings are vague. The documents filed in support of the contempt case do not disclose clearly about the coercive steps taken against the petitioner in violation of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 30.07.2013. In contempt of court proceedings, there cannot be fresh adjudication on the rival claims of the parties. Court can take cognizance of violation of a direction which is explicit and plainly self-evident to consider whether there has been disobedience or willful violation. In the instant case, except contending that petitioner in writ petition (since died) was evicted from the premises after 30.07.2013, no material is placed to show that he was in possession and occupation of premises and was evicted after 30.07.2013. Unless it is shown that coercive steps were taken against petitioner after 30.07.2013, contempt would not lie. In the absence of clear material to substantiate the allegation, proceedings for Contempt of the orders of the Court, 1971, cannot be initiated.
8. I do not see any ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed.
It is made clear that observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this contempt case.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this contempt case, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Date: 16-04-2014 Kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO C.C.NO.1452 OF 2013 Date: 16-04-2014 kkm