1994 PLP 1242 (CLC)

This is an application under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Action by way of contempt is sought against the respondent No. 1 who is the landlady of the premises together with her husband and the learned Controller, the last two of whom have been cited as respondents Nos. 2 and

3. In the first place, it is a matter of serious concern to me that whereas in the F.RA. there is only one respondent namely Syeda Raisa Fatima who is the landlady the other two alleged contemners namely, Syed Zaheer `Abbas Zaidi and the learned IIlrd Controller have been cited in the title of the application not as alleged contemners but as two other respondents. This is factually incorrect and what is more on account of pressure of work with which the Courts are over‑burdened a description of this character is capable of occasioning an inadvertent notice of contempt to a judicial officer who may have acted merely in the performance of his duties. I would, therefore, caution those concerned to be careful because procedural deviations of this character, seemingly innocent, can be very dangerous and may themselves constitute contempt.

2. As to the merits of the controversy what is urged is that the learned Controller as well as the landlady and her husband have violated the order of this Court dated 12‑1‑1993.and more particularly the under‑noted portion:‑‑ "Before parting with the case, I am inclined to grant four months' time to the tenant to vacate provided that it continues to make deposits of rent in consonance with the tentative rent order, already holding the field, failing which the tenant would be liable to be evicted in execution without any further notice to it. At the same time, as and when the premises is vacated, the landlady would return from out of the fixed deposit of Rs.42,000, upon due adjustment, whatever balance remains available within the entitlement of the tenant." It would appear that during the course of‑execution proceedings the learned Controller passed an order of his own dated 28‑8‑1993 which occasioned the filing of an earlier Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the appellant in this Court namely,. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 932/1993 upon which at the time of ordering notice on 19‑9‑1993 it was observed here as under:‑‑ "Pursuant to the orders of the Court according to Mr. Zahiruddin, appellant has vacated on 7‑9‑1993. As regard the accounts between the parties, in the context of the deposited amount of Rs.42,000 lying with the respondent landlady, it is urged that a Commissioner who was appointed by the learned Controller found a sum of Rs.50,453.25 due to the appellant, inclusive of the referred deposit. However, the learned Controller instead of permitting payment of such amount to the appellant required security to be furnished which could be resorted to following upon a controversy between the parties pending in the Civil Court. This according to Mr. Zahiruddin is not in consonance with the order of the Court which required the payment of the balance deposited amount at the time of vacating the premises. Notice to the respondents." Subsequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aforesaid was disposed of through a consent order passed on 19‑12‑1993, the parties agreeing that the referred order of the Controller could appropriately be assailed through a First Rent Appeal and, accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of by consent. Now the appellant has filed the present application for contempt.

3. It seems to me that the matter of refund due to the appellant‑tenant, if any, was agitated before the learned Controller in execution proceedings in the ordinary course of law. The learned Controller, as a result, has come to a finding, whether right or wrong is immaterial but that is a finding arrived at in the exercise of quasi‑judicial powers without any appearance of disregard of the authority of this Court. Likewise, the contest initiated before the learned Controller at the instance of the landlady may or may have been legally correct but that too seems to have been resorted to in the ordinary course of law and in bona fide exercise of personal rights though, for obvious reasons, one may be having an honest but erroneous notion as to such rights. If action was taken in gross abuse of the process of Court and without any reasonable or probable cause the situation could well have been different to the extent of the landlady. Matters would rest there and, unless it be an extraordinary case, a judicial officer or a quasi‑judicial officer could not be treated to have committed contempt. In the instant case there were counter‑cases as to the dues between the parties pending before a Civil Court which gave rise to the finding the learned Controller under reference. As said the finding may be right or wrong but that is not material. It was certainly not in disregard of the orders of the Court passed in this F.R.A. No case for contempt. is made .out. Dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1934/K Petition dismissed.