M/S ATMA RAM BUILDERS P. LTD.versusA.K. TULI & OTHERS

                             [2011] 6 S.C.R. 935
 lu;r;J~~   '''"'f-"116 ~ .1 · · : ... '"1~·71 · ·:) .·•\tf:.(, jj~-r-;vr,.r.uc:-; A
  nEufi,,:'.i\'. M/S: AfMA\RAM ·'BUILDERS;,PJLTD.v•;i, if:i21fh. '·1 A
                       1

 a'·'e'{iJVtiJ ::_ . .;. (•fJ!Bn ,,.1;~ ,;::: :.,_YtV}V .!inu\ .. ii~P.i3 1nmu>i -~n:i2·h.>1
  rm:tuGt1 ·3•:i;'t1f; ·.i AK~·.IT"l:JLI &iOTHERSr,,cwn.~A .1 (;J ::_ lir•>~
 bn11l,CQntempt1 l?.etitioii (C)•iNosr .140J-=l 144 of. 20t1·A .1Gi~1
 sri8.-~ lG.nu>i ~~-.d)!e·~~; . . r'"n1'·1\~N~r1ir;; 1•. ,,2 .t.o1f1~::v-12 Gn8fl1Si-1 .b1 1LJ 8
             SLP. (:;0t}::·~os;:'27~q5-27759 of {2010 :; "'· iir..', <l B


[MARKANDEY KATJU                     AND 'GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
     C.onte.mpt
        1;·~rt
                   Qf.,Court,1·- ·.<')''.
               .11_•·1 •
                 ~::-·qr   -·~rtj~
                                  Eviction         clecr~e upheld -by
                                          ·- .... , :. ,. 1-·::·)""i ,. · ·.
                                                                             the.
                                                                              1' .•.y
                                                                                     l;ligh                 c
Court·~· pf!P[f!/p(C.<?,qrt    ffi~ri1i$.s,~,ccs4p,_hQy.'_~vet,           9rant~d,,sff,
monthJ' 'flme'~tb the I tehaht 'to Vacate' tfle
          1
                                                     're           1
                                                                           mises o~
furnishirfg''bstia1·;~Nq~Vt~~ir9. • .2··~iefi~nl;9~it#e,((u!fi~~he,~
                                              11                    1
undertaking n6~ va~atJ'8 'tfl;:r -p1feinlse~·'!:!{A'flegeCJ'suli-tenaM/t 0
                 1

raised frivolOO's O'bJe'i::tions1ifif.itJ;ff3'6x(:J80tio1'lipto~r;Jif.igs which D
was rejected - ln,an:>app-e'aliffled.lthereagainst,B'AdditionaP
District Judge by a detailed order sta¥.~£1.t!'e, 0v.;f!,[f~rt of
possession - Contempt petitions filed by the landlord - Held:
Additional District Judge-Contemnor by staying thetv/arrants ._:i
of possessi9.n:rPJf!P...l{f9!/Y:St.!cP~f~ed_edcaf)d,.cwf!r,rt:tled,order E
passed byt 1sup.r:e.we,;,"<;9µrt'(;:;,,.Jh,e {!Jrde519t-:,$pp[efTJe,:Court
directing t/1'3::~efJC1!1J)o,:yaga{~. P!'!fT!lS.ee1 iQ .,s(JJ: rpo.nth_sr,,was
totally floyt~P Q"7 1Pc<!e!;Pf:/..S~~fi(,by, th~; Adcii(ional. D/stric~ Judge,
quashed - Cliief Justice, g(cth,e,'-Hfgfy gourt Siirected·tO, take                       '1
disciplinary action against the Additional pistrict Judge.
       :srt ~1·:1h.1· . 2 :.-1 ··: .'_·~.- 1v . ~.J.~ ·._.;:1; ·.: ,_J,.< ·J<J Fri,~:-. F
      Jµc:Jiciary ,-:-·Subprdinatejudioiary.:j Certain·'.section. of the.;;J
subQfdin~:te'ti:t1diciary;;passing1,or..dets.c.on,cextranEW:11s·il
co.osicfe.r.atiQt.Wt-:.'-He.lctAS.uc;h.:kifi1dof..rQalpractices i/J.ave tb:'bEMt
tot-allYiWe.13deJil.i~tqlsh;)'onu rm 1etilien lsrll sts1~ur.otra1 i(i0rns·1txe                              f)

  \ -CfVlt! ()f~ff~\tNA 'P 5URf~'BTct 8t{t~:C~rit~'1tT' ~ ep:~nuoW~ G
   111                                              0                      1
(clVi~lf.rJ?fii .iio~&-1' 1br2olf1f' .r rv:>. Jnql-\ dit~u , ~j .1 ,Pn1: 101 :_• .c f,)     •i,;;
  ei>w wmo :uu mit0 ,ZQ~1ill::>soo1q no11uooxe sn1 n; bsln e1evv
  tirHncSl::FM(CD):CNo:·2:7i7'55::.277'.59~of~2©1'0;1;' 01 rit ,-.::ir'. ,, H t:": :uoH
                                                                                  •···-1""1;')• 1,,.. I         t
                                                                                  ~       ~._I      t:,.,       r••t'

                                        .. 935                                                              H
     936       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A      Dushyant Dave, G.L. Rawal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mukul
  Rohtagi, Jayant Bhushan, Pramod Swarup, Bina Madhuan,
  Krishna Kumar Singh, Amit, Vinita Sasidharan (for Lawyer's
  Knit & Co.), Ashwani Kumar, Kuljeet Rawal, Radhika Gautam,
  Rishi Agrawala (for E.C. Agrawala), Garima Prashad, Ninad
B Laud, Pareena Swarup, Sushma Verma, Shekhar Kumar, Asha
  G. Nair, Anil Katiyar for the appearing parties.
           The following Order of the Court was delivered
                               ORDER
C          Heard learned counsel for the parties.
          Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court against the
    judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14th September, 2010
    by which the Delhi High Court had rejected the second appeal
    filed by the tenant against the decree of eviction.
D
        By our order dated 06th October, 2010, we dismissed the
    special leave petitions by the following order:
           "Taken on Board.
           Heard.
E
         We find no merit in the special leave petitions and they are
         dismissed accordingly. However, we grant six months'
         time from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises
         in question on furnishing usual undertaking before this
F        Court within six weeks from today."
        From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that the
   tenant had to vacate the premises in question within six months'
  from the date of dismissal of the special leave petitions and to
  furnish usual undertaking within six weeks from that date. It is
G extremely unfortunate that neither an undertaking was furnished
  nor did the tenant vacate the premises in question on the expiry
  of six months, i.e., 06th April, 2011. Instead, frivolous objections
  were filed in the execution proceedings, and our order was
  flouted. Hence, these contempt petitions have been filed by the
H landlord.
     ATMA RAM BUILDERS P. LTD. v. A.K. TULi                     937


      It is deeply regrettable that in our country often litigation!)   A
between the landlord and tenant are fought up to the stage of
the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses in this Court then
he starts a second innings through someone claiming to be a
co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in some other capacity and in
the second round of litigation the matter remains pending for           B
years and the landlord cannot get posses.sion despite the order
of this Court The time has come that this malpractice must now
be stopped effectively.

       After our order dated 06th October, 2010, the _counsel of
the tenant should have advised the tenant .to vacate the                C
premises in question like a gentleman before or on the expiry
of six months from 06.10.2010 but unfortunately they advised
the tenant to put up some other person claiming independent
right against the landlord as a sub-tenant and start a fresh round
of litigation to remain in possession.                                  D

      In this manner, our order dated 06th October, 2010 was
totally frustrated.
     In these contempt proceedings, we had passed the
following order on 27th April, 2011:                                    E
     "Very serious allegations have been made in these
     contempt petitions. By our Order dated 06.10.201 O we
     had dismissed the Special Leave Petitions of M/s Udham
     Singh Jain Charitable Trust-the tenant by giving it six            F
     months time from that date to vacate the premises in
     question on furnishing usual undertaking before this Court
     within six weeks from that date. Despite that Order, the
     petitioner in the original Special Leave Petitions Nos.
     27755-27759 of 2010 has not vacated the premises in
     question nor did it file any undertaking before this Court.        G
     Instead, to frustrate the Order of this Court dated
     06.10.2010 it got some persons to file frivolous objections
     before the executing court. One objector is none else than
     the son of one of the trustees of the tenant-trust, another
     objector is one of the trustees claiming to be the sub-            H
    938       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A         tenant.
          In our opinion, such conduct is contemptuous and is simply
          unacceptable. It prima facie seems to us that the alleged
          contemnors are only creating friyolous objections to start
          a second round of litigation, and frustrate the Order of this
B
          Court dated 06.10.2010. We have noted that the tenancy
          was for 10 years effective from 01.11.1982. Hence., the
          respondents in these contempt petitions (petitioner in the ·
          original Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of
          201 O and the objectors) should have handed over
c         peaceful, vacant possession on 01.11.1992, but they have
          not done so till now.
          Issue notice.
          Dasti in addition.
D
      List on 10th May, 2011 by which time counter affidavit may
      be filed. It is made clear that the case will not be adjourned
      on that day. There are very serious allegations of flouting
      the Order dated 06.10.2010 passed· by this Court. We may
E     be constrained to pass harsher orders on that date if
      cause shown is not sufficient according to us.
      The alleged contemnors shall remain present in the Court
      on 10th May, 2011.

F     The petitioner in these contempt petitions is allowed to
      implead Archna Sinha, Additional District Judge Central,
      Delhi. Issue notice to her also. She is directed to remain
      present in the Court on 10th May, 2011 to explain to this
      Court how and why she had passed the order dated
      23.04.2011 in total defiance of the Order passed by this
G
      Court on 06.10.2010. She is also directed to file a
      personal affidavit before the next date of hearing. She shall
      also show cause why contempt proceedings be not taken
      against her and a recommendation be made by this Court
      for her immediate suspension.
H
     ATMA RAM BUILDERS P. LTD. v. A.K. TULi                  939


     Notice may be served dasti to Mr. Ashwani Kumar,               A
     Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner in the original
     Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of 2010.
     Copy of this Order shall be given to the alleged contemnors
     and Archna Sinha, Additional District Judge Central, Delhi,
                                                                    B
     forthwith."
     Today, when the case was taken up for hearing at 11.25
a.m., senior counsels appeared on behalf of the alleged sub-
tenants and stated that their clients will vacate the premises.
Hence, we directed that possession be handed over to the            c
landlord by 12.30 p.m. today and we directed this case to be
put up again before us at 12.30 p.m. today.
      In this case, the order of this Court dated 06th October,
2010 has been totally flouted. It appears that the alleged sub-
tenant in the execution proceedings raised an objection which       D
was rejected on 01 st April, 2011 against which an appeal was
filed to the Additional District Judge Archana Sinha who by a
detailed order dated 23rd April, 2011, has granted stay of the
warrant of possession.
                                                                    E
     It seems to us that in this country certain members of the
Subordinate Courts do not even care for orders of this Court.
When this Court passed an order dated 06th October, 2010
granting six months' time to vacate, the contemnor Archana
Sinha, Additional District Judge had no business to pass the        F
order dated 23rd April, 2011 but instead she has stayed the
warrants of possession, meaning thereby that she has
practically superseded our order and overruled us.
      We are constrained to say that a certain section of the
subordinate judiciary in this country is bringing the whole         G
judiciary of India into disrepute by passing orders on eXtraneous
considerations. We do not wish to comment on the various
 allegations which are often made to us about what certain
 members of the subordinate judiciary are doing, but we do
 want to say that these kind of malpractices have to be totally     H
    940       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A weeded out. Such subordinate judiciary Judges are bringing a
  bad name to the whole institution and must be thrown out of
  the judiciary.
        In this case, the contemnor Archana Sinha had no
    business to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011 and it is
8
    hereby quashed as totally void.
         We further direct the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Delhi
    High Court to enquire into the matter and take such disciplinary
    action against Archana Sinha, Additional District Judge, as the
c   High Court deems fit. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith
    to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for
    appropriate orders on the administrative side against Archana
    Sinha.
       We are informed at 12.30 p.m. today that the possession
D of the property in dispute has now been delivered to the
  landlord.
         In view of this, the contempt notice against the contemnors
    is discharged.
E         Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned counsel for the landlord/
    petitioner stated that the tenant has not paid electricity and
    other dues which the tenant was liable to pay. For this separate
    proceedings may be filed by the landlord, which will be decided
    by the competent court expeditiously.
F
        Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar Generals/
    Registrars of all the High Courts to be placed before their
    respective Hon'ble the Chief Justices for information and
    appropriate orders.
G          The Contempt Petitions are disposed of.

    N.J.                          Contempt petitions disposed of.