Smt. Penumalli Sulochana vs. Harish Rawtani

Held

The Court held that the respondent had willfully and deliberately violated the common judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 in CCCA Nos. 172 and 175 of 2015 and was liable for contempt of court. The Court rejected the respondent's contention that the contempt case would not lie because the decree was executable, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang, which established that consent decrees are executable, and willful violation of such decrees amounts to contempt. The Court found that even if there was no wilfulness in non-payment of rent during April and May 2020 due to the lockdown, the respondent could not claim suspension of rent obligation for the period after May 2020, as businesses were permitted to operate. The admitted defaults in rent payments, coupled with the failure to pay municipal taxes and the alteration of the premises, constituted willful disobedience. The Court directed the respondent to pay all arrears of rent and municipal taxes within four weeks, vacate the property by 15.04.2021, pay rents up to that date, and pay costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioners. Failure to comply would result in civil imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

Facts

The petitioners filed contempt cases (CC Nos. 649 and 650 of 2020) alleging willful and deliberate violation of a common judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 passed by the High Court in CCCA Nos. 172 and 175 of 2015. These appeals were disposed of based on a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 21.11.2017. The petitioners contended that the respondent failed to comply with the terms of the compromise. Specifically, they alleged that the respondent permanently altered the structure of the premises by cutting a slab, failed to pay outstanding municipal property tax despite assurances, and defaulted on monthly rent payments. The respondent admitted to paying only a portion of the rent due after June 2020, leading to multiple defaults. The High Court had previously ordered the respondent to vacate the premises by 31.01.2017, with the entitlement to arrears of rent and taxes to be decided later.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent willfully and deliberately violated the common judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 in CCCA Nos. 172 and 175 of 2015, thereby constituting contempt of court, specifically concerning the alleged permanent alteration of the premises, non-payment of municipal taxes, and default in rent payments, as per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contentions of the Petitioners: The respondent damaged the property by cutting a slab, violating the 'as is where is' condition and the permission for only minor interior decoration. They also failed to pay property tax, with online records showing it as outstanding, despite the respondent claiming payment. Furthermore, the respondent defaulted on monthly rent payments, especially after April 2020, and could not take shelter under lockdown provisions as the judgment and decree were binding. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent argued that the contempt case would not lie because the decree or order is executable. They also claimed difficulty in paying rent after April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, and that the payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- between June 2020 and January 2021 should discharge them from contempt charges. The respondent's counsel argued that there was no wilfulness in non-payment during the lockdown period.