Crl. OCP No. 17 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. OCP No. 17 of 2003
Date of decision: November 12, 2008
Raj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Satish Goel and others others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. R.C. Dogra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. C.L. Panwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate with
Ms. Rachna Arora, Advocate, for the contemners.
Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
K.S.GAREWAL, J.
Raj Kumar, petitioner herein, was in occupation of a shop
measuring 6 ft x 8 ft 353, Royal Artillery Bazar, Ambala Cantt. at monthly
rent of Rs. 20/- under Kamla Devi.
Raj Kumar was evicted from the premises on the basis of an ex-
parte eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala on May 9, 2001.
Possession was taken on June 5, 2002. Proceedings had been initiated not
against Raj Kumar but against Sat Pal by Kamla Devi on December 8, 1997
(ejectment application 477/1997) Therefore, how was it that Raj Kumar
Crl. OCP No. 17 of 2003 2
was evicted, when no proceedings were filed against him.
This is the somewhat confusing issue in this case which has led
to the initiation of criminal proceedings against Kamla Devi’s sons Satish
Goel, Naresh Goel and Jatinder Goel.
Raj Kumar had filed an application to the Advocate General,
Haryana under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating
criminal contempt proceedings against the three brothers. The Advocate
General accorded his consent on July 2, 2003. Thereafter, a Division Bench
on July 28, 2003 issued contempt notice to the respondents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the record. We find that even though Raj Kumar was the
tenant, Kamla Devi had in 1977 filed an ejectment petition against Sat Pal,
treating Raj Kumar as a sub-tenant under Sat Pal. The petition was allowed
by the Rent Controller but the Appellate Authority dismissed the petition
holding that Raj Kumar was the tenant not Sat Pal. This order is dated
December 13, 1985 and is Annexure P/1. Therefore, necessarily Raj Kumar
was the tenant and Sat Pal was a non-entity.
A second ejectment application was filed against Raj Kumar on
the ground of him being in arrears of rent and for material impairment of the
utility of the property. This was dismissed and appeal too was dismissed.
Kamla Devi elected to employe subterfuge. She filed a third
ejectment petition on December 8, 1997, but not against Raj Kumar, it was
again against Sat Pal. As the respondent did not appear he was proceeded
ex-parte. However, Kamla Devi died on July 7, 2000 and her sons were
impleaded as petitioners in her place. Therefore, the ex-parte order passed
against Sat Pal, which were executed against Raj Kumar were in
Crl. OCP No. 17 of 2003 3
proceedings initiated by Kamla Devi and not by the respondents.
Nevertheless, the respondents benefited from this order and are now facing
serious contempt charges. The ex-parte ejectment order is dated May 9,
2001 (Annexure P/5), order delivering possession is dated June 5, 2002
(Annexure P/6), and Advocate General Haryana’s consent is dated July 2,
2003 (Annexure P/7).
At the outset, the respondents apologized. They furthermore
pleaded that the proceedings launched by Kamla Devi were in fact
conducted by their father Om Parkash. It was Om Parkash who led
evidence but he too died on June 10, 2003. Furthermore, Raj Kumar had
been restored possession of the shop. Pleading all these mitigating
circumstances, the respondents profusely apologized and sought pardon.
In the above stated facts of the case, we find sufficient
mitigation and remorse. The respondents have purged the contempt by
handing back possession to the petitioner. We accept the apology tendered
by the respondents and impose Rs. 10,000/- as costs to be paid to the
petitioner within two months from today, failing which the petitioner shall
have the right to execute the order to recover the costs.
(K.S. GAREWAL)
JUDGE
November 12, 2008 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
prem JUDGE
Note:- Whether refer to reporter Yes