REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011 IN

S.L.P.(C) NOS.27755-27759 OF 2010

M/s Atma Ram Builders P. Ltd. & ..Petitioner

versus

A.K.Tuli & Others ..Respondents

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Special  Leave  Petitions  were  filed  in  this  Court  

against  the  judgment  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  dated  14th  

September, 2010 by which the Delhi High Court had rejected  

the second appeal filed by the tenant against the decree of  

eviction.   

By our order dated 06th October, 2010, we dismissed the  

special leave petitions by the following order:

“Taken on Board. Heard. We find no merit in the special leave petitions  and they are dismissed accordingly.  However, we  grant  six  months'  time  from  today  to  the  petitioner to vacate the premises in question on  furnishing  usual  undertaking  before  this  Court  within six weeks from today.”

From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that  

the tenant had to vacate the premises in question within six

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-2-

months' from the date of dismissal of the special leave  

petitions and to furnish usual undertaking within six weeks  

from that date.  It is extremely unfortunate that neither an  

undertaking  was  furnished  nor  did  the  tenant  vacate  the  

premises in question on the expiry of six months, i.e., 06th  

April, 2011. Instead, frivolous objections were filed in the  

execution proceedings, and our order was flouted.  Hence,  

these contempt petitions have been filed by the landlord.

It  is  deeply  regrettable  that  in  our  country  often  

litigations between the landlord and tenant are fought up to  

the stage of the Supreme Court  and when the tenant loses in  

this Court then he starts a second innings through someone  

claiming to be a co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in some  

other capacity and in the second round of litigation the  

matter remains pending for years and the landlord cannot get  

possession despite the order of this Court  The  time has  

come that this malpractice must now be stopped effectively.

After our order dated 06th October, 2010, the counsel  

of the tenant should have advised the tenant to vacate the  

premises  in  question  like  a  gentleman  before  or  on  the  

expiry of six months from 06.10.2010 but unfortunately they  

advised the tenant to put up some other person claiming  

independent right against the landlord as a sub-tenant and

start a fresh round of litigation to remain in possession.  

In  this  manner,  our  order  dated  06th October,  2010  was  

totally frustrated.

In these contempt proceedings, we had passed the  

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-3-

following order on 27th April, 2011:

“Very serious allegations have been made in these  contempt  petitions.   By  our  Order  dated  06.10.2010  we  had  dismissed  the  Special  Leave  Petitions  of  M/s  Udham  Singh  Jain  Charitable  Trust-the  tenant  by  giving  it  six  months  time  from  that  date   to  vacate  the  premises  in  question on furnishing usual undertaking before  this  Court  within  six  weeks  from  that  date.  Despite   that  Order,   the  petitioner  in  the  original Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759  of 2010 has not vacated the premises in question  nor  did  it  file  any  undertaking  before  this  Court. Instead, to frustrate the Order of this  Court  dated  06.10.2010  it  got  some  persons  to  file  frivolous  objections  before  the  executing  court.  One objector is none else than the son of  one of the trustees of the tenant-trust, another  objector is one of the trustees claiming to be  the sub-tenant.

In our opinion, such conduct is contemptuous and  is simply unacceptable.  It prima facie seems to  us that the alleged contemnors are only creating  frivolous objections to start a second round of  litigation, and frustrate the Order of this Court  dated 06.10.2010. We have noted that the tenancy  was  for  10  years  effective  from  01.11.1982.  Hence,  the  respondents  in  these  contempt  petitions  (petitioner  in  the  original  Special  Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of 2010 and the  objectors)  should  have  handed  over  peaceful,  vacant  possession  on  01.11.1992,  but  they  have  not done so till now.

Issue notice.

Dasti  in addition.

List  on  10th May,  2011  by  which  time  counter  affidavit may be filed.  It is  made clear that  the  case  will  not  be  adjourned   on  that  day.  There are very serious allegations of  flouting  the  Order  dated  06.10.2010  passed by this  Court.   We  may be  constrained to  pass harsher  orders  on  that  date  if  cause  shown  is  not  sufficient according to us.

The  alleged  contemnors  shall  remain  present  in  the Court on 10th May, 2011.

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-4-

The  petitioner  in  these  contempt  petitions  is  allowed  to  implead  Archna  Sinha,  Additional  District  Judge  Central,  Delhi.  Issue  notice  to  her also.  She is directed to remain present in  the Court on 10th May, 2011 to explain to this  Court how and why she had passed the order dated  23.04.2011 in total defiance of the Order passed  by this Court on 06.10.2010. She is also directed  to file a personal affidavit before the next date  of  hearing.  She  shall  also  show  cause  why  contempt proceedings be not taken against her and  a recommendation be made by this Court for her  immediate suspension.

Notice may be served dasti to Mr. Ashwani Kumar,  Advocate-on-Record  for  the  petitioner  in  the  original Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759  of 2010.

Copy of this Order shall be given to the alleged  contemnors and Archna Sinha, Additional District  Judge  Central, Delhi, forthwith. “

Today, when the case was taken up for hearing at 11.25  

a.m.,  senior  counsels  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  alleged  

sub-tenants and stated that their clients will vacate the  

premises.   Hence,  we  directed  that  possession  be  handed  

over to the landlord by 12.30 p.m. today and we directed  

this case to be put up again before us at 12.30 p.m. today.

In  this  case,  the  order  of  this  Court  dated  06th  

October, 2010 has been totally flouted.  It appears that  

the alleged sub-tenant in the execution proceedings raised  

an objection  which was rejected on 01st April, 2011 against  

which an appeal was filed to the Additional District Judge  

Archana  Sinha  who  by  a  detailed  order  dated  23rd April,  

2011, has granted stay of the warrant of possession.

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-5-

It seems to us that in this country certain members of  

the Subordinate Courts do not even care for orders of this  

Court.  When this Court passed an order dated 06th October,  

2010  granting  six  months'  time  to  vacate,  the  contemnor  

Archana Sinha, Additional District Judge  had no business  

to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011 but instead she has  

stayed the warrants of possession, meaning thereby that she  

has practically superseded our order and overruled us.

We are constrained to say that a certain section of the  

subordinate judiciary in this country is bringing the whole  

judiciary  of  India  into  disrepute  by  passing  orders  on  

extraneous considerations. We do not wish to comment on the  

various allegations which are often made to us about what  

certain members of the subordinate judiciary are doing, but  

we do want to say that these kind of malpractices have to  

be totally weeded out.  Such subordinate judiciary Judges  

are bringing a bad name to the whole institution and must  

be thrown out of the judiciary.

In  this  case,  the  contemnor  Archana  Sinha  had  no  

business to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011 and it is  

hereby quashed as totally void.

We  further  direct  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  the  

Delhi High Court to enquire into the matter and take such  

disciplinary  action  against  Archana  Sinha,  Additional  

District Judge, as the High Court deems fit.  Let a copy of  

this order be sent forthwith to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of  

the Delhi High Court for appropriate orders on the  

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011

-6-

administrative side against Archana Sinha.

We are informed at 12.30 p.m. today that the possession  

of the property in dispute has now been delivered to the  

landlord.

In  view  of  this,  the  contempt  notice  against  the  

contemnors is discharged.

Mr.  Dushyant  Dave,  learned  counsel  for  the  

landlord/petitioner  stated  that  the  tenant  has  not  paid  

electricity and other dues which the tenant was liable to  

pay.  For this separate proceedings may be filed by the  

landlord,  which  will  be  decided  by  the  competent  court  

expeditiously.

Let  a  copy  of  this  order  be  sent  to  the  Registrar  

Generals/Registrars  of  all  the  High  Courts  to  be  placed  

before  their  respective  Hon'ble  the  Chief  Justices  for  

information and appropriate orders.

The Contempt Petitions are disposed of.

............................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ............................J. MAY 10, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]