Defiant Tenant Faces Supreme Court's Ire, Held Guilty For Contempt For Not Vacating Premises
The Supreme Court recently convicted a tenant for contempt of court for violating the Court's directions to deliver vacant possession of the property to the landlord.
“Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold," the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal observed.
The bench explained that the power to punish for contempt is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system.
"Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal proceedings. It goes beyond from mere defiance of a Court's authority, but also denotes a profound challenge to the principles that underpin the rule of law. At its core, it is a profound disavowal of the respect and adherence to the judicial process, posing a concerning threat to integrity of judicial system. When a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply with a Court's order."
The failure to comply with judicial directions is not only disrespectful to the Court but also a challenge to the rule of law.
By failing to adhere to judicial directives, a contemnor not only disrespects the specific order, but also directly questions the Court's ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence in the judicial system and it's ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively. Therefore, power to punish for Contempt of Court's order is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By addressing and penalizing contemptuous conduct, the legal system reinforces its own legitimacy and ensures that judicial orders and proceedings are taken seriously. This deterrent effect helps to maintain the rule of law and reinforces public's faith in the judicial process, ensuring that Courts can function effectively without undue interference or disrespect."
The Court added that the contempt power under Article 129 is essential to uphold the rule of law.
"Contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The ability to address contempt ensures that the authority of the court is respected and that the administration of justice is not hampered by willful disobedience. In the said context, the power of this court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its authority, integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance of its own dignity. Enshrined in Article 129 of the Constitution of India, this power is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and confidence in the judicial system."
In this case, the landlord had filed eviction suits against the tenant who was occupying shop rooms in a building in Mumbai in 2003. The suits were decreed in 2015, which the Bombay High Court affirmed in 2022. The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's special leave petitions in June 2023. However, based on a condition that the tenant will file an undertaking, nine months' time was given to vacate the premises. The order specifically mentioned that breach of the undertaking might give rise to contempt proceedings. Since the tenant refused to vacate the premises, the landlord filed contempt petition.
Since the tenant did not appear in response to the notice issued on the contempt petition, a bailable warrant was issued to secure his attendance. Despite the execution of bailable warrant, he did not appear and the Court was constrained to issue a non-bailable warrant.
The Court recorded his response on appearance as follows :
"On appearance of contemnor, no doubt he appears to be a senior citizen, however, to gain sympathy of the Court started shedding tears. He showcased difficulty in standing, however, the Court offered him a chair and a glass of water. On being asked why he has not yet complied the orders, it was submitted by him that he is a poor person with large family to support, and apologised for his conduct and later sought pardon. In the same breath he said that the Curative Petitions filed by him are still pending, and until those are decided, time may be granted. Then, he pleaded that, he has no other place to shift his large family and requested to grant him at least one month time to vacate the suit premises."
The Court refused to accept his explanation that curative petition has been filed against the dismissal of the review petition filed against the order which dismissed his SLP. Considering his conduct, the Court held him guilty of contempt of court.
However, having regard to the advanced age of the tenant, the Court imposed a lenient sentence, sentencing him to one day till the rising of the Court. He was given one week's time to vacate the premises, failing which the police authorities were directed to take forcible possession of the premises.
He was also directed to bear the costs for the execution of the non-bailable warrant against him and the recovery of possession.
Case Title- M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 702