Supreme Court of India

AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS.versusARUN KUMAR KEDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2011 INSC 397
Decided: 13 May 2011
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: MARKANDEY KATJUGYAN SUDHA MISRA

Holding

The tenant's failure to vacate after the Supreme Court's eviction order constitutes contempt of court, warranting immediate eviction by police force.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004) and granted him nine months from November 4, 2009, to vacate the premises. The tenant's review petition was also dismissed on March 25, 2010. Despite the orders, the tenant failed to vacate the tenanted premises. A contempt petition (C No. 139 of 2011) was filed alleging contempt of the Court's directions. The Court held that the tenant's refusal to vacate amounted to contempt and ordered his immediate eviction by police force. The contempt petition was consequently disposed of with the eviction directive.

Issues considered

What legal consequences arise when a party fails to comply with a Supreme Court order directing eviction?
Does the tenant's non‑compliance constitute contempt of court?

Subjects

contempt of courtevictionrent controltenancySupreme Court of Indiapolice eviction

Judgment

                       [2011] 6 S.C.R. 820

A                 AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS.
                                 v.
               ARUN KUMAR KEDIA AND ANR.
             Contempt Petition (C) No. 139 of 2011
                               IN
B                Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004
                          MAY 13, 2011
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

C       Rent control and eviction:

      Eviction order - Tenant's appeal dismissed by Supreme
  Court - Tenant granted nine months time from the date of
  dismissal of appeal to vacate the tenanted premises - Tenant
D did not vacate the tenanted premises even after the period       ·I


  granted - Contempt petition - Supreme Court disposed of the
  contempt petition directing eviction of tenant by police force
  - Contempt of Court.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
E No. 139 of 2011.

        h

        Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004.

F       From the Judgment & Order dated 12.3.2004 of the High
    Court Calcutta in F.A.No. 23 of 2000.

        Jaideep Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania for the Appellant
G       Ramesh Singh (for O.P. Khaitan & Co) for the
    Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered


H                              820
   AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS. v. ARUN KUMAR                    821
              KEDIA AND ANR.
                           ORDER                                  A

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

      In this cas~. the tenant's appeal being Civil Appeal No.
2663 of 2004 was dismissed by this Court by our order dated
November 04, 2009 and we gave the tenant nine months' time        B
from that date to vacate the premises in question. Review
Petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed on March 25,
2010.

    We are informed that the tenant has not vacated the           c
                                                                      I
premises in question. Hence, this contempt petition.

     Accordingly, we direct that the tenant-Anderson Wright &
Co. shall be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street,
Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force.
                                                                  D
       The Contempt Petition is disposed of.

D.G.                            Contempt Petition disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search