A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case focuses on the deliberate and willful non-compliance with Supreme Court orders by the respondent-tenant (contemnor) in an eviction matter. The contemnor failed to vacate the premises despite multiple judicial orders and engaged in actions deemed contemptuous. The Court utilized its constitutional powers under Article 129 of the Constitution of India to address this issue, emphasizing the importance of the judiciary’s authority and the integrity of its processes. The contemnor’s repeated delays and disregard for orders culminated in a finding of contempt, with specific directions for compliance. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding its authority and maintaining public trust.

Keywords: Contempt of Court, Article 129, Tenant Eviction, Judicial Authority, Compliance, Undertaking.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain

ii) Case Number
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024 in SLP (C) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023

iii) Judgment Date
09 September 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal

vi) Author
Justice J.K. Maheshwari

vii) Citation
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 414

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 129, Constitution of India
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None explicitly mentioned.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Contempt Law, Civil Procedure, Property Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The petitioner-landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent-tenant for non-payment of rent and bona fide requirements. Multiple judicial fora, including the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court, ruled in favor of the landlord. The respondent-tenant continuously challenged these decisions, culminating in the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court on 06 June 2023. Despite being granted nine months to vacate the premises, the contemnor indulged in dilatory tactics, failing to vacate the premises or comply with court directions, thus prompting the current contempt proceedings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner filed eviction suits in 2003, which were decreed in their favor in 2015 by the Court of Small Causes, Bandra.
2. The respondent-tenant filed appeals, which were dismissed in 2022.
3. Subsequent civil revisions and review petitions by the tenant were dismissed by the High Court and Supreme Court.
4. On 06 June 2023, the Supreme Court granted nine months for the tenant to vacate the premises upon filing an undertaking.
5. The tenant failed to comply, filed further review petitions, and sought extensions, all of which were dismissed.
6. Contempt proceedings were initiated when the respondent failed to vacate the premises by the deadline of 06 March 2024.
7. The tenant evaded court orders, refused personal appearances, and misled the authorities, necessitating non-bailable warrants.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the contemnor’s conduct amounted to deliberate and willful non-compliance with Supreme Court orders.
2. To what extent can the Court invoke its contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 to ensure compliance.
3. Whether leniency could be granted considering the contemnor’s age and health.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s failure to vacate the premises was deliberate, constituting contempt of court.
2. They highlighted repeated delays and misuse of judicial processes by filing baseless applications and petitions.
3. The petitioner sought the Court’s intervention to ensure the execution of the eviction decree and penalize the contemnor.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The contemnor claimed to be a senior citizen with health issues, requesting leniency.
2. He argued that pending curative petitions warranted additional time for compliance.
3. He also expressed financial and logistical challenges in relocating his family from the premises.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the contemnor’s actions demonstrated deliberate non-compliance with judicial orders. The contemnor’s repeated defiance and misuse of judicial resources undermined the authority of the Court, necessitating strict action.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that powers under Article 129 are essential for maintaining judicial dignity and ensuring compliance with orders.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. The contemnor was granted one week to vacate the premises, failing which forceful possession would be undertaken.
2. The costs of enforcement, including police assistance, would be recoverable from the contemnor.
3. The contemnor was sentenced till the rising of the Court in light of his age and health.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the importance of judicial authority and compliance with court orders. It highlights the judiciary’s role in addressing contempt to safeguard the rule of law. While leniency was shown considering the contemnor’s age, the case reiterates that disobedience of judicial orders will not be tolerated.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Bar Association of India v. Union of India [(2000) 2 SCC 289]
2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot [(2006) 5 SCC 1]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 129, Constitution of India
2. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971