Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1390 (AP)

Kirthi Chekuri v. Kappagantu Jankiram Sarma

2024-10-03

HARINATH N., R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) The 1st respondent herein, had filed W.P.No.18765 of 2021 with the complaint that the Municipal Corporation of Guntur had constructed and was running a Municipal High School in the land belonging to the 3rd respondent Satram, which was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the writ petition, without payment of any rent and that the said 3rd respondent- Satram was not taking any steps to evict the Municipal Corporation from the said land. 2. On 12.04.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of an interlocutory order, had directed the Municipal High School represented by the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation to pay an admitted amount of Rs.25,01,400/- to the 3rd respondent-Satram therein, within a period of four weeks, and also to pay the rent per month by calculating the rent at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. yard. It appears that the said order was amended by a separate order of the learned Single Judge, dated 30.04.2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022, to read as rent of Rs.2/- per sq. feet instead of Rs.2/- per sq. yard. 3. Contempt Case No.2120 of 2022 was filed, on the ground that the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022, had been violated. It is the admitted case, on all sides, that the Municipal Corporation paid an amount of Rs.25,01,400/- by way of cheque No.009490, dated 06.07.2022 and another sum of Rs.39,600/- by way of cheque No.009619 dated 17.09.2022 towards rent for the months from April 2020 to September 2022, calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. yard. 4. After such payment, the Convener of the Satram is said to have addressed a letter dated 20.09.2022 informing the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation that the rent for the period April 2020 onwards would have to be calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet and the balance amount payable was Rs.3,16,800/- for the period April 2020 to September, 2022. 5. After this demand and communications, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant herein, stating that the payment of Rs.25,01,400/- was in accordance with the orders of the Court dated 12.04.2022 and the subsequent amendment, dated 30.04.2022, changing the rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. 5. After this demand and communications, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant herein, stating that the payment of Rs.25,01,400/- was in accordance with the orders of the Court dated 12.04.2022 and the subsequent amendment, dated 30.04.2022, changing the rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. feet was not part of the order dated 12.04.2022 and consequently, the said variation would not fall within the purview of the contempt case as the contempt case had been filed for violation of the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2022. The counter also stated that the rate of rent was something which has to be resolved between the Municipal Corporation and the Satram and necessary steps were being taken for that purpose and that there was no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the said contentions, and after hearing both sides, had held that the correction of rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. feet was actually a typographical error as the correspondence as well as the material before the Court clearly demonstrate that the rent was being sought at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet and not Rs.2/- per sq. yard. The learned Single Judge, after arriving at this finding also held that non-payment of rent for the subsequent months from April 2020 at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet amounts to violation of the orders of the Court and convicted the appellant herein under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The learned single Judge, after such conviction, sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present contempt appeal. 8. The primary grounds of appeal, raised by the appellant are that the 3rd respondent-Satram was due an amount of Rs.63,91,661/- as municipal tax to the Municipal Corporation and this was sought to be set off against the rent payable to the Satram and consequently, there would be no violation of the orders, even if the rent were to be calculated at the rate of 2/- per sq. feet; O.A.No.302/2021 had already been filed by the respondent-Satram before the Endowment Tribunal for eviction and recovery of rent and the corporation was seeking to dispute title of the Satram over the land as well as the rate of rent, and accordingly, the finding that there was violation of the orders of the Court may not be warranted; the very title of the Satram over the land in question was in dispute and the same was also before this Court by way of W.P.No.16576 of 2023 filed by the Satram against the orders of the Municipal Corporation dated 30.01.2023; and that the Municipal Corporation had already moved the Endowments Department for annulment of the entries made in favour of the Satram, in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, 1988. 9. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon the letter dated 12.07.2016 said to have been addressed by the then Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department wherein the rate of rent was taken as Rs.2/- per sq. yard and the arrears of rent of Rs.25,01,400/- had been arrived at on the basis of this calculation. He would contend that negotiations had been going on between the Municipal Corporation as well as the Endowment Department for the adjustment of the dues of the Municipal Corporation against the tax dues of the Satram, and consequently, it cannot be held that the Municipal Corporation, and more particularly the appellant, had not paid the rents due to the Satram. 10. Sri J.V. Phanidoot, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent / writ petitioner contends that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022, as amended on 30.04.2022 is clear and unambiguous and the monthly rent from April 2020 would have to be calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet, which would mean that the payment of Rs.39,600/- towards rent for April 2020 to September, 2022 would not amount to compliance of the directions of this Court as an amount of Rs.3,16,800/- would still be due, if the rent is taken at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet. 11. feet, which would mean that the payment of Rs.39,600/- towards rent for April 2020 to September, 2022 would not amount to compliance of the directions of this Court as an amount of Rs.3,16,800/- would still be due, if the rent is taken at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet. 11. Learned Single Judge had held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court on the ground that the contention of the appellant, that the amended order dated 30.04.2022 is beyond the scope of the contempt case, is not tenable and that she had failed to comply with the orders of the Court. 12. The contention of the appellant that there is a dispute with regard to the title to the property claimed by the Satram and the 1st respondent and that it is the subject matter of various litigations before the Tribunal and before this Court, would not be relevant to the question of whether the directions of the learned Single Judge have been complied with or not. As the order of the learned Single Judge remains in force, this Court would only look at whether such an order has been complied with or not. 13. The letter dated 22.09.2022 addressed by the appellant to the Convener of the Satram shows that the appellant had called upon the Satram to cooperate in fixation of tax dues so that the same may be adjusted against the tax dues. The said request cannot be treated to be an unreasonable attempt to circumvent the orders of the Court. Any payment of rent to the Satram would be out of the public funds and in such circumstances, the course of action adopted by the appellant to conserve public funds, by adjusting the rents, directed to be paid by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022, against the Tax dues of the Satram, would not require public funds to be spent, and instead, result in recovery of taxes that would be due from the Satram. 14. The learned Single Judge, had not taken into account the contention of the appellant, that the Satram remains due an amount of Rs.63,91,661/- towards the municipal tax, and that the Municipal Corporation is seeking to pay the rents to the Satram, by adjusting the taxes due to the Municipal corporation. 15. 14. The learned Single Judge, had not taken into account the contention of the appellant, that the Satram remains due an amount of Rs.63,91,661/- towards the municipal tax, and that the Municipal Corporation is seeking to pay the rents to the Satram, by adjusting the taxes due to the Municipal corporation. 15. In such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold that the appellant had violated the orders of the Court deliberately or had refused to comply with the orders of the Court without sufficient cause. 16. This cannot mean that the Municipal Corporation can evade payment of rent as directed by the learned Single Judge, for an interminable period. It shall be open to the private respondent to initiate fresh contempt against the present incumbent or such future incumbents to the post of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, as deemed fit, if the issue relating to adjustment of rents against the tax payable by the respondent-Satram is not settled within six weeks from the date of this order and the rents either not adjusted against tax dues or paid in cash thereafter. 17. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the contempt appeal setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.2120 of 2022 dated 12.12.2023. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.