High CourtDivision BenchContempt Petition disposed of.

Amar Nath Roy and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Kedia and Anr.

Case / Petition Number:Contempt Petition (C) No. 139 of 2011; Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004
Neutral Citation:[2011] 6 S.C.R. 820

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Markandey Katju
  • Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date
2011-05-13
Court Decision / Holding
Contempt Petition disposed of. 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.
Final Disposition
Contempt Petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Amar Nath Roy
  • Ors.

Respondents

  • Arun Kumar Kedia
  • Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Jaideep Gupta
  • • Sarad Kumar Singhania

Counsels for Respondents

  • • G Ramesh Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns a tenancy dispute arising from eviction proceedings under rent-control and eviction laws. Amar Nath Roy and others (the appellants) challenged the eviction order following dismissal of their Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004 by this Court, which granted the tenant nine months from the date of dismissal to vacate the premises. A review petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed on 25 March 2010. The tenancy remained with the appellants, who did not vacate within the allotted period, leading to a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 139 of 2011). The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, observed that the tenant did not comply with the court’s directions to vacate and proceeded to dispose of the contempt petition by directing eviction. The order directed that the tenant (Anderson Wright & Co.) be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force. The Contempt Petition was disposed of. The decision underscores that non-compliance with contempt directions in eviction disputes attracts swift enforcement and reiterates the imperative of compliance with earlier judicial orders in tenant-dispulsion matters.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the earlier dismissal of the appeal and the nine‑month period to vacate were not fully complied with, and that they should be afforded relief or extended time to vacate, consistent with the contempt proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents sought strict enforcement of the contempt order, demanding eviction of the occupiers from the premises in question in compliance with the Court’s directions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Amar Nath Roy and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Kedia and Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [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 KAT JU 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 820 821 AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS. _v._ ARUN KUMAR 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. I We are informed that the tenant has not vacated the c 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.