IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 355 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCR.509/2005 Dated 25/11/2005 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHIK AHAMMED, S/O.B.M. SULEKHA AGED 41 YEARS, AISWARYA NAGAR, KUNNATHURMEDU PALAKKAD-682 013. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N. ABDUL HAI, S/O.NOOR MUHAMMED RAVUTHER AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 'HARIA' NEAR VICTORIA COLLEGE, COLLEGE ROAD PUTHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED ILLIYAS, S/O.N.ABDUL HAI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAKKUNNU VADAKKANTHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR. C FOR R2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ----------------------------------------- CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.355/2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This is a contempt application filed by the 6th respondent in R.C.R.No.509/2005 on the files of this Court. The said R.C.R was filed by the 1st respondent herein, who was a tenant of a building owned by the petitioner and others. This Court disposed of the revision, giving liberty to the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent herein to file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court to vacate the tenanted building on or before 30.6.2006 and also to pay/deposit the admitted arrears of rent, if any. The undertaking was to be filed within one month from the date of the order, that is, 25.11.2005. The 1st respondent filed an affidavit and got extension of time to vacate the tenanted premises up to 30.6.2006. It is alleged that even after the cut off date, the tenant continued in possession and persuaded his son, the 2nd respondent herein to move the Munsiff's Court, raising a COC 355/08 2 claim that the said respondent is in possession and he may not be evicted, except following the due procedure of law. Thus, both the respondents have committed contempt of the Rent Control Court, it is alleged. 2. The 2nd respondent appeared through counsel and filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations made against the respondents. He also pointed out that the contempt application is barred by limitation, in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. We notice that the 1st respondent, as per the undertaking, was bound to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 30.6.2006. If he continued in possession thereafter, he committed contempt. But, in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the contempt application should have been filed at least by 29.6.2007. We notice that this case was filed only on 3.3.2008. Therefore, we are of the view that the contempt application is barred by limitation. So, it is unnecessary to go into other disputed questions. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed as barred by limitation. The contentions of both sides on other points are kept open. The dismissal of the application will not affect the rights of the COC 355/08 3 landlords, including the petitioner, to proceed with the execution proceedings. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Nm/