IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1682 of 2007(S) ------------------------------------------------------- ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN RCR.No.297/2006 DATED 14-8-2006 (RCA.No.8/2003 THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY PALAKKAD) (RCP.No.22/96 OF RENT CONTROL(MUNSIFF) COURT, OTTAPPALAM) .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------- LAKSHMIKUTTY, W/O. LATE SHRI. SIVASANKARAN, AGED 64, RESIDING AT THRIKKANGODE AMSOM, CHOROTTOOR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ SHRI. C.S.MANICHETTIAR, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6/353, MANNANOOR DESOM, P.O.KAVALAPPARA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (Civil) No.1682 of 2007-S ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The petitioner alleges in this contempt case filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, that, the respondent/contemnor has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in R.C.Rev.No.297 of 2006 dated 14th August, 2006. In this contempt case the request is to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondent and punish him for the so called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. (2). The tenant was before this Court in R.C.Rev.No.297 of 2006, inter alia, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No. 22 of 1996. This Court, while rejecting the Rent Control Revision Petition filed, had granted one year's time to the tenant, to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the premises in his possession. The petitioner/complainant submits that, the respondent in the contempt case has not complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court. (3). In our opinion, since there was no undertaking by the tenant before this Court and since no orders were passed directing the revision petitioner to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the premises COC.NO.1682/07 -2- on a request made by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, no contempt case would lie before this Court. If, for any reason, the tenant has not vacated the premises as directed by this Court, the landlord/landlady necessarily has to file appropriate Execution Petition before the Executing Court. Accordingly, we do not intend to take cognizance of this contempt case filed by the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, the contempt case requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS