THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C.NO.851 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This contempt case is filed complaining the disobedience of the orders of this court in C.R.P.No.3750/1998 dated 9.2.2001. 3. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. 4. Different proceedings filed by both the parties are necessary to be noted before proceeding further. 5. The landlords filed R.C.No.116/1989 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The said R.C. was dismissed on 30.3.1994. Challenging the same, landlords filed appeal in R.A.No.290/1994 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed on 6.7.1999. Aggrieved the same, landlords filed revision before this court in C.R.P.No.4216/1999. 6. The tenant filed R.C.No.129/1989 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking restoration of amenities. The R.C. was dismissed on 31.3.1994. Challenging the same, he filed R.A.No.278/1994 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 11.6.1998. Aggrieved the same, the tenant filed revision before this court in C.R.P.No.3750/1999. 7. This court clubbed both the revisions filed by the landlord and tenant in C.R.P.Nos.4216/1999 and 3750/1999 respectively and disposed of both the revisions by common order dated 9.2.2001. The revision filed by the landlord in C.R.P.No.4216/1999 was allowed and the revision filed by the tenant in C.R.P.No.3750/1999 was dismissed. However the tenant was given time till the end of December,2002 for vacating the premises in question and it was made clear by this court that the tenant shall not sublease or alter the premises and shall be regular in payment of rents. The tenant was directed to file an affidavit to this effect within 30 days from the date of the order. 8. Aggrieved by the order of this court in the above said revisions, the tenant carried the matter to the Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.9939 and 9940 of 2001. The petitions were dismissed and the tenant was given time till 31.12.2003 for vacating the suit schedule premises. 9. While disposing of both the revisions, this court in C.R.P.Nos.4219/1999 and 3750/1999 dated 9.2.2001 directed the landlord to provide amenities to the tenant. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under for better appreciation: “After the judgment is pronounced , it is brought to the notice that in the absence of amenities, during the period which is now granted by this Court, it will be much difficult for the tenant to lead life in the premises and therefore, the landlord may be directed to provide W.C., water facility, conservancy and sanitation. Therefore, it is ordered that the landlord shall provide the following amenities to the tenant, if they are not available or disconnected forthwith: 1. W.C., 2. Water facility, 3. Conservancy and 4. Sanitation. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord submitted that he will obey the orders of this Court in complying with the above directions, but the tenant may cause obstructions and if that being the case, it would amount to contempt proceedings. In the circumstances, so as to have a solution to the problem between the parties, it is made clear that if there is any such obstruction or objections on the part of the tenant, the landlord is at liberty to take the assistance of the police concerned for compliance of the orders of this Court. In view of the work rendered by the two commissioners, further amount of Rs.1,000/- each is enhanced towards their fee and the same is payable by both the landlord and the tenant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each.” 10. Now in this contempt case, though the tenant has referred to different proceedings and the orders passed therein, his main complaint is that the landlords/respondents did not provide the amenities as directed by this court in the above revisions and thus flouted the orders of this court. 11. The respondents filed a detailed counter and stated inter alia that after passing the orders, they made attempts to comply with the orders of this court and that they have provided one extra pipe for water connection into the tenant’s front portion and that whenever municipal water supply is provided, the tenant was getting water through that pipe and that the tenant enjoyed the water, but did not pay any water charges and thus he enjoyed the water supply free of cost and that he was also selling water to the hawkers and other road side businessmen. The 1st respondent submitted a separate application dated 3.3.2001 vide application no.109426 in file no.48218 to the GM(E)/O&M Dn.VII of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water supply and Sewerage Board at Khairtabad in the single window cell, Hyderabad and that the Dy. General Manager (Engg.) of HMWSSB by his proceedings dated 3.8.2001 sanctioned water supply and directed him to pay Rs.2,740/- and accordingly he paid vide receipt no.85620 dated 3.8.2001 for water connection and sewerage connection to the front portion occupied by the tenant. Therefore, the case of the landlords is that they have complied with the orders of this court in providing water supply to the tenant. It is further stated that on many occasions they went to the spot to construct a separate W.C. cum bath for the tenant although there was a WC cum bath, which the tenant converted into a kitchen. The tenant refused permission to enter his house to construct a W.C. cum bath in compliance with the orders of this court. The tenant, his brothers and others formed into a wall and did not allow any workers to enter into the house. It is stated in the Commissioner’s report that the tenant has converted the W.C. into bath into a kitchen, although there is a separate kitchen with cooking platform occupied by the tenant. Having converted the W.C. cum bath into a kitchen, the tenant is running the business of tea stall therefrom. However, in order to comply with the orders of this Court, on 17.3.2001, the landlord took workers and on the same day in the morning at 8.30 a.m. went to SD road and bought construction material worth Rs.1,170/-, that he and the workers went to the front portion to construct separate WC cum bath room to the tenant’s portion and the workers mixed the sand and cement with water and set to raise the construction on the rear side, where the old WC cum bath was existing. As the tenant already converted it into a kitchen and doing tea stall business, he refused permission to the proposed construction. Therefore, the landlord instructed the workers to construct the new toilet on the front side of the front portion and the workers were set to raise the wall and also build the latrine. But the petitioner and his wife, his brother and Munnalal obstructed. They did not allow them to enter the front portion and that they directed the workers to remove the construction material and the shouted at them in filthy language. Thereafter, the landlord went to the Police Station, Gopalpuram along with the workers, and submitted written complaint. In the police station, Munnalal, the brother of the tenant declared that they do not want any W.C. that he will himself provide a WC, that six months ago the then existing WC was converted into a kitchen as the conversion is more profitable. That in the police station, the tenant and Mr. Lesely Meagre gave in writing that they do not want WC from the landlords and that they will file a petition in this court for clarification, where to locate the proposed W.C. After they gave this in writing, the police closed the file and did not provide any further protection to carry out any work. Therefore, the case of the landlords it that they have taken all the steps to comply with the orders of this court, but the tenant obstructed them to comply. It is further stated that after the landlord left the spot, the tenant ingeniously made use of the material (sand, cement and water) and constructed a window by removing the roof tiles and fixing glass window therein, which is in contravention of the orders of this court dated 9.2.2001 in C.R.P.Nos.4216 and 3750 of 1999. With these averments and stating that they have not violated the orders of this court, the contempt petition was sought to be dismissed. 12. The tenant filed rejoinder and specifically denied the averments made in the counter affidavit. 13. From the above the main complaint of the petitioners is that the landlords failed to provide the amenities viz., W.C., water facility etc., as directed by this court in C.R.P.No.3750/1999 dated 9.2.2001. On the other hand the case of the respondents/landlords is that they have provided water supply to the tenant by providing pipe from the rare portion to the front portion, where the tenant is residing and subsequently, they applied for water connection by paying necessary charges of Rs.2,740/- vide receipt no.85620 dated 3.8.2001 and the water connection was also sanctioned. Their further case is that even as per the Commissioner report, the tenant has converted the W.C. cum bath into a kitchen although there is a separate kitchen with cooking plat form occupied by the tenant and having converted the W.C. cum bath into a kitchen, the tenant is running the business of tea stall therefrom Further, when they made attempts to construct W.C. by procuring construction material and the workers on 17.3.2001, the tenant obstructed them to proceed with the work and, therefore, as per the directions of this court, they filed complaint before the Police Station seeking police assistant, but the tenant, Mr. Lesley Meagre, their advocate, gave in writing that they do not want W.C. from the landlords and that they will file a petition before this court for clarification, where to locate the proposed W.C. and that pursuant to this, the police closed the case. The further case of the landlords is that because of the acts of the tenant, they suffered wrong full loss of Rs.1,620/- and that the entire material is left on the road and that after the landlord and workers left the spot, the tenant ingeniously made use of the construction material and constructed a window by removing the roof tiles and fixing glass window therein. The tenant filed rejoinder and denied the averments. 14. This court referred matter to the lower court for recording evidence and accordingly evidence was recorded and the parties stated as per the averments made in their respective affidavits. 15. This court directed the landlord to provide W.C., water facility, conservancy and sanitation. 16. As noted above, the landlords in the counter affidavit stated that they provided one extra pipe for water connection into the tenant’s front portion and the tenant was getting water through that pipe. Further it is also categorically stated that the 1st respondent obtained a separate water connection by paying necessary charges. The same were marked as Exs.B- 7 and B-8. Though the tenant has denied that no such water facility is provided, there is no material supporting this averment and hence the complaint of the tenant in this regard is without any basis. 17. In the commissioner’s report filed in C.R.P.No.4216/1999, it is stated that the “It is further observed that the tenant has converted the bathroom into kitchen and using it as a kitchen, although there is a separate kitchen with cooking platform in the portion occupied by the tenant.” From this statement in the report of the Commissioner it is clear that the tenant has converted the bathroom into kitchen and using it as kitchen though a separate kitchen with cooking platform in the portion occupied by the tenant is existing. 18. As per the directions of this court, the landlords were to provide W.C. In the counter affidavit it is categorically stated that the in order to comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court on 17.3.2001 the landlord took workers introduced by Mr. Shyam, Civil Contractor of Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad to the spot on 17.3.2001 at 8.30 am, and bought construction material. In the counter affidavit, the details of the construction material bought was described. It is stated that the landlord and the workers went to the front portion to construct separate WC cum bath to the front portion of the tenant and the workers mixed the sand and cement with water and set to rise the construction on the rear side, where the old WC cum bath was existing and that when the workers were set to raise the wall and also build the latrine, the tenant , his wife and his brother obstructed. 19. In order to show that the construction material was purchased and the work was commenced, the landlord got filed the evidence affidavit of one C.Narasimhareddy, who carries on sale of retail building material. In his affidavit he categorically deposed that they supplied brick and sand and one cement bag and the he paid the price; that at the time of unloading, the tenant Shivlal and his brother and his wife protested and said that they will not allow the work; at the instance of A.S.Rao, and also as the price is already paid, they unloaded the material and left from front portion at house no.9-3- 13, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad opp to SBH and post office. Though he was cross-examined at length, his evidence with regard to supply of material to the landlord is consistent. 20. The other circumstance to be noticed is that in the rejoinder filed by the tenant at paragraph no.13 it is stated as under: “.. They made an attempt to encroach upon the premises under my occupation and wanted to demolish the existing structure to cause further inconvenience without thereby being any attempt comply with the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The respondents were interested only in creating a scene by procuring the workers and placing the construction material. No sincere attempt was made to comply with the directions of this Hon’ble Court either to provide water supply or to restore other amenities like bathroom and WC and they were only interested to cause to harass me . . .” 21. Further the tenant in his cross-examination at page no.12 deposed that “It is true that the first respondent came on 17.3.2001 at about 8-30 a.m. along with the masons, brick, sand and cement to the schedule building, but it not correct to say that R-1 came for construction of the additional W.C. It was only for the demonstration to occupy the premises.” 22. From the above statement made in the counter affidavit it is clear that the petitioner has admitted that the respondents have procured the workers and placed the construction material. It is to be noticed that no prudent man would purchase the construction material and engage the workers only to make a scene and leave the material there without construction. In his evidence at page no.12 in the cross-examination, the tenant as P.W.1 admitted that before 4.3.1989, there was W.C. and toilet in his rare portion. 23. In these circumstances the inference that could be drawn is that the landlords have made attempts to construct W.C. 24. The other grievance of the respondents is that when the tenant obstructed them they approached the police station and filed complaint. The said complaint before the Police Station, which is entered into the General Diary is marked as Ex.B-6 and the complaint made by the tenant is also marked as Ex.B-5. Further the entries in the General Diary are also marked as Exs.B-28 and B-29. From a reading of these entries it is clear that both the parties approached the police station and no compromise could be arrived at between the parties and the police advised the respondent no.1 to remove the construction material and sent away the workers. 25. These acts of the respondents would show that he made attempts to comply with the directions of this court, as he procured the construction material and also the workers. But the construction could not be carried out. 26. The above material would disclose that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the directions of the court. On the other hand, the material on record would show that the tenant is indulging in speculative litigation and saw to it that the landlord does not comply the directions of this court. This attitude of the tenant cannot be appreciated. 27. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the contempt case and the petitioner failed to prove that there is any willful disobedience on the part of the landlords in complying with the directions of this court. Hence, the contempt case is dismissed. 28. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the contempt case is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. AVS ------------------------ 01-06-2010