1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 240/2008 IN W.P. No. 3720/2008 (DECIDED) (Rajkumar Sawai Bhawanisingh VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. Shri Rohit Joshi, counsel for the R-2 to 9. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for committing contempt of Court by deliberately flouting the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court on 10.09.2008 in Writ Petition NO.3720/2008 and for breaching the undertaking dated 11.09.2008 by not depositing the third installment in conformity with the license fee, which was due and payable by the respondent no.2 to 9. It appears that by an order dated 10.09.2008, the learned single Judge of this Court had, while disposing of the Writ Petition 2 No.3720/2008, granted permission to the petitioners therein/respondent nos.2 to 9 to file the revision before the appropriate authority on payment of double the license fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It further appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition had,upon taking instructions from his clients, made a statement that the amount payable in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(2) would be deposited in three installments, the first and the second installment of Rupees Ten Lacs each, would be deposited on 10.10.2008 and 10.11.2008 and the balance due would be deposited in the third installment. The petitioners had undertaken to file an undertaking on the next day to the aforesaid effect. Such undertaking was submitted by the respondent nos.2 to 8 to this petition on 11.09.2008. 3 It is stated in the undertaking that the respondent nos.2 to 8 to this petition would deposit an amount of Rupees Ten Lacs on 10.10.2008, a further amount of Rupees Ten Lacs on 10.11.2008 and the balance amount due and payable by 10.12.2008. It is not in dispute that the respondent nos.2 to 8 had deposited an amount of Rupees Ten Lacs in this Court on 10.10.2008 and a further amount of Rupees Ten Lacs on 10.11.2008. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the third installment paid by the respondent no.2 to 8 was of Rupees One Lac Forty Five Thousand. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the respondents have breached the undertaking by not paying the third installment by calculating the sum due and payable on the basis of the agreed license fee i.e. Rupees Ninety Thousand per month. 4 Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on a clause in the agreement at page 15 of the same to canvass that the agreed license fee due and payable by the licensee to the licensor was Rupees Ninety Thousand per month. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent nos.2 to 9 were liable to pay the double of Rupees Ninety Thousand in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as per the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 10.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.3720/2008 and as per the undertaking dated 11.09.2008. Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 9, submitted that the respondent nos.2 to 9 have neither disobeyed the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 10.09.2008 nor have they breached the undertaking dated 11.09.2008. According to the 5 learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 9, in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the respondent nos.2 to 9 were liable to pay double the license fee and a combined reading of all the clauses of the agreement of Leave & License executed between the parties on 27.12.2004 clearly shows that the license fee was Rupees Fifty Five Thousand per month and the respondent nos.2 to 9 were liable to pay service charges of Rupees Thirty Five Thousand per month in addition to the license fee of Rupees Fifty Five Thousand per month. According to the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 9, the service charges were separately stipulated in the Agreement of Leave & License and the license fee payable per month was separately earmarked in several clauses of the agreement. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 9, the learned single Judge of this Court had, while disposing of the 6 Writ Petition No.3720/2008, not adjudicated upon the issue, which is, for the first time, arising in the contempt proceedings. A perusal of the undertaking, according to the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 9, clearly shows that Rupees Ten Lacs were payable on 10.10.2008, another Rupees Ten Lacs were payable on 10.11.2008 and the balance amount was due and payable on 10.12.2008 and the same is duly paid by the respondent nos.2 to 9 by depositing the amount of Rupees One Lac Forty Five Thousand in this Court. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 9, no action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 could be initiated against the respondents. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, stated that the respondent no.1 had nothing to say on the issue, which is raised by the parties in this contempt petition. 7 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 10.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.3720/2008, the undertaking dated 11.09.2008, the submissions filed on behalf of the respondents and also the Leave & License Agreement executed between the parties on 27.12.2004. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on10.09.2008 does not disclose that a particular amount was due and payable by the respondent nos.2 to 8 to the petitioner herein. The undertaking dated 11.09.2008 also specifies the amounts, which were due and payable on 10.10.2008 and 10.11.2008. The balance amount due and payable on 10.12.2008 is not stipulated in the undertaking. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rupees Ten Lacs was deposited by the respondent nos.2 to 9 on 10.10.2008 and a similar amount was deposited by the respondent 8 nos.2 to 9 on 10.11.2008. The dispute has resulted in view of the payment of Rupees One Lac Forty Five Thousand by the respondent nos.2 to 9 on 10.12.2008. The parties have taken this Court through the agreement of Leave & License executed between the parties on 27.12.2004 and the various clauses incorporated therein. I am afraid that it is not for this Court to interpret the provisions of the document, which is executed between the parties on 27.12.2004. Suffice it is to say that the learned single Judge of this Court had not stipulated the amount due and payable by the respondents in the order dated 10.09.2008 and neither is the amount payable by the third installment mentioned in the undertaking dated 11.09.2008. The dispute between the parties, which is raised at this juncture, requires an adjudication. The issue as to whether an amount of Rupees Ninety Thousand was payable per month as License fee or an amount of Rupees Fifty Five 9 Thousand was payable could be answered only by interpreting the provisions of the document, but surely not under the contempt jurisdiction. After considering the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 10.09.2008 as also the undertaking dated 11.09.2008, it is clear that the respondents cannot be held liable either for committing contempt of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 10.09.2008 or for breaching the undertaking dated 11.09.2008. The contempt proceedings against the respondents are liable to be dropped. In the result, contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE