Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Tenant Over Almost Two-Year Delay In Vacating Premises

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 on a tenant for wilful and deliberate disobedience of its earlier order directing him to hand over vacant possession of the disputed property to the landlord by 30 April 2023. Despite having furnished a categorical undertaking before the Court, the tenant vacated the premises only on 5 September 2025, nearly two years after the deadline.Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, “The eventual handing over of possession does not purge the contempt when compliance comes only after years of disregard and only when compelled through contempt petition. The petitioner had to run from pillar to post, compelled to initiate the present proceedings merely to enforce what was already solemnly undertaken. Such conduct displays casualness toward the majesty of law and undermines faith in judicial orders.”The Court added that, it cannot remain a silent spectator to such blatant disregard of its authority. The sequence of events shocks the conscience of this Court and warrants imposition of exemplary costs so as to send a strong message that undertakings given to the Court are to be honoured strictly and within time.BackgroundThe contempt petition alleged intentional non-compliance with the High Court's order passed on 19 January 2023 passed, wherein the tenant-respondent had assured the Court that he would vacate the premises by 30 April 2023. On the strength of that undertaking, the revision petition had been disposed of.When the landlord did not receive possession even after the lapse of the stipulated period, contempt proceedings were initiated.During the hearing, counsel for the respondent admitted that vacant possession was handed over only on 5 September 2025.The Court reiterated that for civil contempt to be established, three elements must be fulfilled, Existence of a lawful and binding order.Knowledge of the order by the contemnor and Wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order.In the present case, the Court held that each requirement was clearly met. It pointed that the order of 19 January 2023 unambiguously required the tenant to vacate by 30 April 2023.The Court said that, knowledge of the order was inherent, as the tenant himself had furnished the undertaking.Failure to vacate for nearly two years, without any justification or supervening circumstances, demonstrated deliberate defiance.The Court observed that the tenant's eventual compliance “after prolonged delay and without justification” did not absolve the contumacious conduct. It noted that the landlord had been compelled to approach the Court again solely to ensure compliance with a solemn undertaking already given.“Casualness toward the majesty of law”Strongly criticising the respondent's conduct, the Court held that the sequence of events “shocks the conscience of the Court” and that such behaviour undermines public faith in judicial orders.The Court emphasised that an undertaking given to a court is not a mere formality but a solemn assurance that must be strictly honoured.Reliance on Supreme Court precedentsWhile acknowledging that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and only in cases of wilful disobedience, the Court found the present matter to be a clear case of intentional default.The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, which elaborates on the mental element inherent in the term “wilful” and holds that disobedience must be conscious, calculated and deliberate. It also referred to Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, AIR 2021 SC 721, reiterating similar principles.Finding wilful default on part of the tenant, the Court imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the respondent, payable to the petitioner within two months. The contempt petition, along with pending applications, was accordingly disposed of.Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate & Mr. Lakshay Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent.Title: kamlesh Rani v. Sanjeev Click here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Tenant Over Almost Two-Year Delay In Vacating Premises

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags