We cannot let the matter simply rest at dismissing the special leave petition, the bench said.
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on tenants who not only violated the undertaking given by them before it, but also filed another Special Leave Petition assailing the order in execution proceedings.
The present petition is a gross abuse of process of Court where the petitioners have frustrated the decree passed by the competent Court sustained right till this Court, the bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar observed and initiated contempt proceedings against all the petitioners.
The bench said: “The petitioners, in fact, gave an undertaking to vacate the premises, in pursuance to an Order dated 22.7.2016 of this Court but yet did not vacate the premises but filed objections in the execution as obstructionist. This endeavour also failed till the High Court by the impugned order.”
The court said it could not let the matter simply rest at dismissing the special leave petition. The petitioners must be firstly made to pay for occupying this premises beyond the period of undertaking and secondly they must face the consequences of violating the undertaking given to this Court, the bench said while directed them to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month commencing from the date they were required to vacate the premises in pursuance to the undertaking till date of vacation.
Initiating contempt proceedings, the bench issued a notice to the tenants and directed them to remain present in the court on the next date. The court also directed that the decree shall be executed within a period of one week from today by the executing court.
This is a classic example to show how some tenants abuse process of court.
The suit for recovery of possession was instituted in 1992 which was decreed by the Small Causes Court in 2014. In March 2016, the matter reached the high court which dismissed the challenge against decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and granted time of three months to vacate the suit premises subject to filing usual undertaking in the registry, which was filed by the tenants.
As the tenants did not vacate, the landlords approached execution court and obtained a warrant of possession. The tenant’s application to stay the warrant was dismissed and the high court upheld the order. Aggrieved, the tenant approached the apex court again, and now ended up facing contempt proceedings.