D.M. BELGAMVALAversusTAMILNADU REAL ESTATES (P) LTD.

                   [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1072


A                        D.M. BELGAMVALA
                                   v.
               TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES (P) LTD.
        (I.A. No. 2/2010 in S.L.P. (C} No. 13740/2010 etc.)
                        NOVEMBER 24, 2010
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

        Administration of Justice:

c        Abuse of process of court - SLP against eviction of tenant
    dismissed by Supreme Court - Tenant filing an undertaking
    to vacate the premises - Thereafter tenant filing the
    interlocutory application for a direction that he need not to
    vacate the premises till the disposal of the review petition or
    in the alternative stay of dispossessin may be granted -
0
    HELD: The application is a sheer abuse of the process of the
    court - The tenant be evicted from the premises forthwith by
    using police force, ignoring the stay of eviction stated to have
    been passed by the High Court - Rent Control and Eviction.

E       JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE:

       Stay order - Granted by High Court - Long after
  dismissal of tenant's SLP against eviction, by Supreme Court
  - HELD: This was not expected of the High Court - Judicial
F discipline requires that High Courts should not try to override
  orders passed by Supreme Court - Rent Control and
  Eviction.
         CONTEMPT OF COURT:

G         Contempt of Order of Supreme Court - SLP against
    e.:iction on the ground of reconstruction of the old premises
    dismissed by Supreme Court - Tenant furnishing an
    undertaking to vacate the premises - Thereafter,

                                 1072
H
D.M. BELGAMVALA v. TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES 1073
                  (P) LTD.

Commissioner of Municipal Corporation revoking the                    A
premission to demolish the premises - HELD: The
Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation is hand-in-glove
with the tenant and it is for this reason that he has passed this
collusive and contemptuous order merely to get over the
order of Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition          B
- Issue contempt of court notice to the Commissioner of
Municipal as well as to the trying to set at naught the order of
the Supreme Court - Rent Control and Eviction.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 2 of 2010.
                                                                      c
     IN

     S.L.P. (C) No. 13704 of 2010

    From the Judgment & Order dated 18.2.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3081 of             D
2009.

     K.K. Mani, Abhishek Krishna for the Petitioner.

     V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondent.                            E
     The following Order of the Court was delivered

                               ORDER

     This is a typical case of a litigant trying to take this Court    F
for a ride.

      In this case, the landlord had filed an eviction peition
against the petitioner-tenant which had been decreed by the
courts below, including the High Court. The eviction was
granted on the ground that the building in question is more than      G
100 years old and needed demolition and fresh construction.
The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13704 of 2010 filed by the
petitioner against the order of the High Court was dismissed
by this Court by order dated 14.5.2010 and the petitioner
                                                                      _Ii
    1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   (tenant) was granted six months time from 14.5.2010 to vacate
    the premises in question subject to filing ususal undertaking
    before this Court. The petitioner had furnished the undertaking
    to vacate the premises in question as directed by this Court.

8      Despite this undertaking, the petitioner has not vacated,
  and instead he has filed this application on 12.11.2010 praying
  for a drection that the petitioner need not vacate the suit
  premises till the final orders passed in the Review Petition of
  in the alternative grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner
C from the suit premises.

        In our opinion, this application is a sheer abuse of the
    process of thE;! court.

        Along with the application an order dated 18.06.2010 of
0 the   Commissioner,   corporation of Chennai has been filed
  purporting to revoke the permission to demolish the property
  in question. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner,
  Corporaion of Chennai is hand-in-glove with the petitioner and
  it is for this reason that he has passed this collussive and
E contemtuous order dated 18.06.2010 merely to get over our
  order dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.201.

       Issue contempt of court notice to the Commissioner,
  Corporation of Channai as well as to the petitioner in this case
  to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt
F of court for trying to take this court for a ride and set at naught
  our order dated 14.5.2010.

         We further direct that the petitioner be evicted from the
  premises in question forthwith by using police force Ignoring the
G order of stay of evicicn which we are informed has been passed
  by he High Court. If the petitioner or anyone tries to obstruct
  this order, he should know now that he will definitely be sent to
  jail. There is a limit of tolerance by this Court and the petitioner
  has crossed that limit.
H
 D.M. BELGAMVALA v. TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES1075
                   (P) LTD.
      We are informed that the petitioner had, long after we        A
dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.2010,
approached the Madras High Court and obtained a stay of
eviction. We are surprised that the Madras High Court has
flouted the order of his Court dismissing the Special Leave
Petition on 14.05.2010. This was not expected of the High           8
Court. Judicial discipline requires that the High Courts should
not try to override orders passed by this Court. Such defiant
attitude of the High Courts will not be tolerated by this Court.

     With these observations, the interlocutary application is
 dismissed.                                                         C

       Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the
  Madras High Court who will place it before the Chief Justice
··of the High Court. The Registrar General will send a report to
  this Court mentioning how and why a stay order was granted        D
  by the High Court despite our order dated 14.05.2010.

      Contempt Petition No. 289 of 2010 in Special Leave
 Petition (C.) No. 13704/2010.

        Contempt Petition is aken on board.                         E
      We are informed that this contempt petition in the Special
 Leave Petition (C.)' No. 13704/2010 has been filed by he
 respondent herein. The, order passed in the interlocuory
 application above will also 'govern this contemp petition.         F
                                ·,

        Issue notice.

        List the contempt petition on 12.01.2011.

 R.P.                                         Matter adjourned.