JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 was the tenant of R-1 at 1, Ansari
Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. It seems that some disputes arose
between them and R-1 moved some application before the
Calcutta High Court in a pending proceedings between
petitioner No. 1 and Punjab National Bank which was rejected
by order dated 5.6.1996 with liberty to R-1 to take
appropriate eviction proceedings against petitioner under
law. Thereafter R-1 filed Suit No. 1778/96 for possession
of first floor of the premises before this court in which
he filed a replication allegedly admitting payment of rent
by petitioner up to April 1996. It is also alleged that R-1
admitted in these proceedings that rent for the premises
was tendered by money order up to March 1997 which was not
accepted but suppressing all these facts R-1 later filed an
eviction petition before Additional Rent Controller for
eviction of petitioner from the premises and had obtained
eviction order dated 2.7.1999.
2. Petitioner’s case is that R-1 had misled the court
of Additional Rent Controller by withholding the
facts/documents and pleadings before Calcutta High Court
and this court and had filed a false application and
affidavit and obtained an ex-parte eviction order on the
ground of non-payment of rent and by indulging in this had
committed a fraud on this court and that of Additional Rent
Controller and the Criminal contempt also.
3. R-1 who is said to have filed an application
before the Calcutta High Court and the suit before this
court had died meanwhile and R-2 is his daughter and was
his general of attorney holder at the relevant time. She
has filed a reply to this petition claiming that it had
become infructuous with the death of R-1 and in terms of
Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act. Allegations of
indulging in any falsehood or committing any fraud on the
court of ARC or this court are denied by her. According to
her, R-1, had submitted the correct facts before ARC in his
eviction petition and he was not obliged to plead anything
with regard to any litigation with which he was not
concerned or to which he was not a party.
4. L/C for petitioner has pressed in service DB
judgment of this court in Satish Khosla v. Ranbaxy
Limited to show that non-disclosure of
pendency of any earlier litigation between the parties and
withholding or non-production of documents which was
relevant to the litigation amounted to committing of a
fraud on the court and also contempt of court.
5. While this matter was under consideration, it
transpired that petitioners had applied for setting aside
of the ex-parte eviction order before the Controller where
proceedings were pending. Apart from that, it does not
appear to us that R-1 could be rendered liable for any
criminal contempt of this court even if it was assumed that
he had failed to disclose the contents of any application
filed by him before the Calcutta High Court or any
replication in the suit before this court.
6. Criminal contempt as defined in Section 2 of
contempt of Courts Act, 1971 connotes the publication of
any matter or doing of any other act which scandalises or
tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of any court, prejudices or interferes or tends
to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding or interferes or tends to interfere with or
obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of
justice in any manner. It is not petitioner’s case
that alleged withholding some information or documents had
interfered with judicial process or had obstructed the
course of justice or had lowered the authority of this
court of for that matter ARC. His only complaint is that
but for this ARC would not have passed the eviction order
against him on the ground of non-payment of rent. This, in
our view, does not interfere with the judicial process or
proceedings nor would it obstruct the course of justice.
More so because if petitioner’s contention was upheld, it
would result in setting aside of the eviction order in an
appropriate remedy.
7. We have also examined the DB judgment of this
court relied upon by petitioner’s counsel which is wholly
distinguishable because the court in that case before it
had found a fraud having been committed by the litigating
party in the fact and circumstances of the case. We have
not come across any proposition laid down in this which
holds that non-disclosure or withholding of any information
or document in any allied or earlier litigation between the
parties amounted to a criminal contempt of court in all
events and circumstances.
8. Considering all this and also that R-1, against
whom petitioner had initiated the contempt action, had
since died and petitioner had sought setting aside of
ex-parte eviction order before the Controller, we find no
merit in this petition. Notice is recalled, proceedings
dropped and petition dismissed.