High Court · 2025

The present application has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005. The disobedience has been alleged against the State respondents, mainly, the Director of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad. The facts of the case as revealed from the different documents annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, from the averments in the affidavit and also from the arguments of the counsel for the parties is that a building was under the rent of the State Government in which a Government school was being run. A title dispute numbered as Original Suit No. 613 of 1989 was filed by the applicants in the present contempt application in the civil court in which other claimants were impleaded as defendants. The title suit is still pending before the Civil Court. In the aforesaid civil suit, the vendees of the original plaintiffs and the defendants have now been impleaded as parties in the case and the said vendees are also in conflict in the present contempt application. Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005 was filed by the applicants in the present contempt application pleading that the premises be vacated and the State respondents be directed to pay rent of the accommodation at the rate prescribed by the Government order dated 28.06.1996. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court. The order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court disposing of Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005 is reproduced below:- "By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 i.e. Director of Education, Basic, U.P., Allahabad to vacate the house of the petitioners and further to pay rent of the accommodation at the rate prescribed by the Government Order dated 28th June, 1996. So far as first prayer is concerned, since the Government School is being run, the same direction cannot be issued to vacate the accommodation. However, it is directed that the Director of Education, Basic, U.P. shall surrender the accommodation and shift the institution building which is in dilapidated condition and there is risk of falling down in a day. The Director of Education, Basic, U.P. is directed to pay the rent according to Government Order dated 28th June, 1996, The writ petition is disposed of accordingly." A reading of the order dated 21.07.2010 would show that directions in the order are self-contradictory inasmuch as the Court refused to grant the prayer for vacating the disputed premise but directed the respondents in the said case (who were admittedly tenants in the disputed premises) to surrender the possession of the accommodation. There could have been no surrender of the accommodation without vacating the premises. The possession of the premises was not surrendered to the applicants, therefore, the present contempt application was filed by the applicants on 24.01.2011. In the meantime, the other claimants to the disputed premises, claiming bona fide need of the disputed premises, instituted Prescribed Authority Case No. 13 of 2010 under Section 21 (1)(A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction of the State respondents from the disputed premises. P.A. Case No. 13 of 2010 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 20.06.2012 and the tenants, i.e., the State departments were directed to vacate the premises in favour of the applicants in P.A. Case No. 13 of 2010. It is relevant to note that the applicant no. 3 is the power of attorney holder of applicant nos. 1 and 2. The applicant no. 3 as power of attorney holder of applicant nos. 1 and 2, executed a sale deed of the premises in favour of his mother and brother. The State respondents as well as the mother and brother of the applicant no. 3 challenged the order dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority through different appeals filed under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control Appeal filed by the mother and brother of the applicant no. 3 is numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 122 of 2012. The said Rent Control Appeal is still pending before the concerned appellate court which has stayed the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Government School earlier referred in the present order was shifted and the disputed premises had been vacated by the State respondents in 2023. However, the State respondents have not yet surrendered its possession to the applicants on the ground that a title dispute exists between different parties regarding the disputed premises and as tenants they could have surrendered the possession only in favour of the owner of the disputed premises. It has been further stated that because of the order dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the State respondents could not have transferred possession to the applicants of the present contempt application who are plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 613 of 1989. The applicants allege violation and willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005 on the ground that despite the aforesaid order, the opposite parties have not surrendered the possession of the disputed premises to the applicants even though the premises have been vacated in 2023. The present contempt application is not maintainable. As noted earlier, the direction in the order dated 21.07.2010 to surrender possession is contrary to the observation of the Court itself. The possession of the premises could not have been surrendered without vacating the premises. The prayer of the applicant for a direction to the State respondents to vacate the premises was rejected by this Court. The order dated 21.07.2010 was impossible of being complied by any tenant in 2010. The contempt application was filed in 2011 when no cause of action could be in existence to plead any willful disobedience. The premises were vacated by the State respondents in 2023. Apparently, no cause of action existed in favour of the applicants on the date the contempt application was filed and the subsequent event cannot create a retrospective cause of action to validate the filing of the contempt application. It is also apparent from the facts stated above that a title dispute existed between different parties and there is an order of the Prescribed Authority directing that the possession of the premises be handed over to the rival claimants. The said order has been stayed in Rent Control Appeal filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority. However, the circumstance that conflicting orders by different courts regarding handing over the possession of the disputed premises exists, absolves the opposite parties i.e., the State respondents from the charge of any willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court. The circumstances also persuade this Court to refrain from framing charges and prosecuting the opposite parties, i.e., the State respondents in contempt. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is not a case to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt application is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Vipasha VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The present application has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005. The disobedience has been alleged against the State respondents, mainly, the Director of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad. The facts of the case as revealed from the different documents annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, from the averments in the affidavit and also from the arguments of the counsel for the parties is that a building was under the rent of the State Government in which a Government school was being run. A title dispute numbered as Original Suit No. 613 of 1989 was filed by the applicants in the present contempt application in the civil court in which other claimants were impleaded as defendants. The title suit is still pending before the Civil Court. In the aforesaid civil suit, the vendees of the original plaintiffs and the defendants have now been impleaded as parties in the case and the said vendees are also in conflict in the present contempt application. Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005 was filed by the applicants in the present contempt application pleading that the premises be vacated and the State respondents be directed to pay rent of the accommodation at the rate prescribed by the Government order dated 28.06.1996. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court. The order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court disposing of Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005 is reproduced below:- "By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 i.e. Director of Education, Basic, U.P., Allahabad to vacate the house of the petitioners and further to pay rent of the accommodation at the rate prescribed by the Government Order dated 28th June, 1996. So far as first prayer is concerned, since the Government School is being run, the same direction cannot be issued to vacate the accommodation. However, it is directed that the Director of Education, Basic, U.P. shall surrender the accommodation and shift the institution building which is in dilapidated condition and there is risk of falling down in a day. The Director of Education, Basic, U.P. is directed to pay the rent according to Government Order dated 28th June, 1996, The writ petition is disposed of accordingly." A reading of the order dated 21.07.2010 would show that directions in the order are self-contradictory inasmuch as the Court refused to grant the prayer for vacating the disputed premise but directed the respondents in the said case (who were admittedly tenants in the disputed premises) to surrender the possession of the accommodation. There could have been no surrender of the accommodation without vacating the premises. The possession of the premises was not surrendered to the applicants, therefore, the present contempt application was filed by the applicants on 24.01.2011. In the meantime, the other claimants to the disputed premises, claiming bona fide need of the disputed premises, instituted Prescribed Authority Case No. 13 of 2010 under Section 21 (1)(A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction of the State respondents from the disputed premises. P.A. Case No. 13 of 2010 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 20.06.2012 and the tenants, i.e., the State departments were directed to vacate the premises in favour of the applicants in P.A. Case No. 13 of 2010. It is relevant to note that the applicant no. 3 is the power of attorney holder of applicant nos. 1 and 2. The applicant no. 3 as power of attorney holder of applicant nos. 1 and 2, executed a sale deed of the premises in favour of his mother and brother. The State respondents as well as the mother and brother of the applicant no. 3 challenged the order dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority through different appeals filed under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control Appeal filed by the mother and brother of the applicant no. 3 is numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 122 of 2012. The said Rent Control Appeal is still pending before the concerned appellate court which has stayed the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Government School earlier referred in the present order was shifted and the disputed premises had been vacated by the State respondents in 2023. However, the State respondents have not yet surrendered its possession to the applicants on the ground that a title dispute exists between different parties regarding the disputed premises and as tenants they could have surrendered the possession only in favour of the owner of the disputed premises. It has been further stated that because of the order dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the State respondents could not have transferred possession to the applicants of the present contempt application who are plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 613 of 1989. The applicants allege violation and willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 60252 of 2005 on the ground that despite the aforesaid order, the opposite parties have not surrendered the possession of the disputed premises to the applicants even though the premises have been vacated in 2023. The present contempt application is not maintainable. As noted earlier, the direction in the order dated 21.07.2010 to surrender possession is contrary to the observation of the Court itself. The possession of the premises could not have been surrendered without vacating the premises. The prayer of the applicant for a direction to the State respondents to vacate the premises was rejected by this Court. The order dated 21.07.2010 was impossible of being complied by any tenant in 2010. The contempt application was filed in 2011 when no cause of action could be in existence to plead any willful disobedience. The premises were vacated by the State respondents in 2023. Apparently, no cause of action existed in favour of the applicants on the date the contempt application was filed and the subsequent event cannot create a retrospective cause of action to validate the filing of the contempt application. It is also apparent from the facts stated above that a title dispute existed between different parties and there is an order of the Prescribed Authority directing that the possession of the premises be handed over to the rival claimants. The said order has been stayed in Rent Control Appeal filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority. However, the circumstance that conflicting orders by different courts regarding handing over the possession of the disputed premises exists, absolves the opposite parties i.e., the State respondents from the charge of any willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by this Court. The circumstances also persuade this Court to refrain from framing charges and prosecuting the opposite parties, i.e., the State respondents in contempt. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is not a case to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt application is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Vipasha VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad