Balbir Singh vs. Punit Garg & Anr.

Facts

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a High Court order dated December 12, 2019. This order directed Respondent No. 1 to renovate/repair a flat within eight months of the Petitioner vacating it and to offer the renovated flat to the Petitioner before the expiry of that period. The Petitioner claimed to be aggrieved by the quality of the renovation. The Respondents filed a reply affidavit stating that the Petitioner handed over possession on December 2, 2020, renovation commenced on December 10, 2020, and the flat was offered to the Petitioner on July 9 and July 14, 2021. The Petitioner took possession on July 14, 2021, without demur. The Respondents stated they incurred an expenditure of Rs. 8,63,308.95 (excluding GST) for the renovation, which was completed within the stipulated eight months. The contempt petition was filed in March 2022.

Held

The Court held that there was no disobedience of the order dated 12.12.2019. The Respondents had carried out the renovation and repair work, and the Petitioner had taken over possession of the flat on 14.07.2021 after inspection. The Court noted that the contempt petition was filed approximately eight months after the Petitioner took possession. The Court reasoned that the nature of allegations regarding deficiencies in the renovation could not be adjudicated in contempt proceedings, which are summary in nature. Given the steps taken by the Respondents for renovation, evidenced by photographs, and the Petitioner's acceptance of possession, the Court was satisfied that the order dated 12.12.2019 stood complied with. The ratio decidendi is that allegations of poor quality of work, when possession has been taken without demur, do not constitute wilful disobedience for contempt proceedings, and such disputes are to be resolved through appropriate civil remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12905/2019, thereby constituting contempt of court? The Petitioner contended that the quality of renovation/repair carried out by the Respondent was unsatisfactory, leading to non-compliance with the spirit of the Court's order. The Respondents argued that the order dated 12.12.2019 was complied with in letter and spirit. They submitted that the renovation was completed, and possession of the flat was handed over to the Petitioner on 14.07.2021, which was accepted without any objection. They relied on photographs showing the condition of the flat before and after renovation and a handing-over-taking-over document. They further argued that any allegations regarding deficiencies in renovation cannot be adjudicated in summary contempt proceedings.