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