Vikram Nayar v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a declaration that his arrest on 06.07.2015 was illegal and ultra vires the powers of the respondents.

2. The petitioner was a tenant of a property bearing no.L-19-A, New Delhi, South Extension, Part-II. A suit (Suit no. 142/2012) was filed by respondent no.3 (the landlord) before the Additional District Judge (South District) for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. By order dated 01.12.2012, a decree for possession was passed in favour of respondent no.3 and against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court (RFA no.512/2012) which was disposed of by a consent order whereby the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises by 31.03.2014. W.P.(C)9837/2016 Page 1 of[4] 2017:DHC:8232

3. The petitioner's statement was recorded on oath and this Court directed that the parties shall be bound by their statements. Notwithstanding that the petitioner had undertaken to vacate the premises in question, he filed an application seeking extension oftime to vacate. The petitioner stated that he had, on the basis of certain information received from the Delhi Jal Board, instituted a civil suit prayingthat the decree ofevictionwas a nullity.

4. This Court did not accept the aforesaid plea and by order dated 19.03.2014, the petitioner's application for extension of further time was rejected. This Court unequivocally held that the petitioner had given an undertaking to the Court and could not be permitted to wriggle out of the same.

5. Despite the said order refusing extension of time, the petitioner did not vacate the said premises. This led respondent no.3 (the landlord) to file a contempt petition (CONT. CAS (C) no.226/2014). The contempt petition was moved on 04.04.2014 and the petitioner was directed to personally appear before the Court on the next date of hearing (that is, 21.04.2014). The petitioner appeared on 21.04.2014 and sought an adjournment on account of his counsel being out of station. At his request, the petition was relisted on 17.07.2014. The petitioner was also directed to be present on that date.

6. On 17.07.2014, the petitioner did not present himself before the Court. He also did not vacate the premises as undertaken by him. On the request of the petitioner's counsel, the matter was again listed on 21.07.2014. On 21.07.2014, the petitioner was granted time till 12 noon on 22.07.2014 to vacate the premises in question, failing which he was directed W'.P,rCJ 9837/2016 Page[2] of[4] to be personally present on 22.07.2014 at 2.30 p.m. The petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid order and also did not appear before the Court on 22.07.2014. Accordingly, non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against him and warrants of possession were also issued and directed to be executed by a bailiffprovided by the Registrar (Judicial) ofthis Court.

7. The matter was taken up again on 31.07.2014 and it was noticed that the warrants had been received back unexecuted. The petitioner was directed as bound to remain present on the next date of hearing. Although, the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the NBW, however, the said application remained pending.

8. On 06.07.2015, the Courtnoticed that the petitionerwas not present in Court. The Court also noticed that on 22.07.2014, the petitioner had been prima facie held guilty of contempt and NBW was issued against him, which remained unexecuted. In the circumstances, the Court directed DCP, South to ensure that the order dated 22.07.2014 is executed at the earliest and also to ensure disciplinary proceedings is initiated against the delinquent officials, if any, who had not executed the NBW.

9. It is seen that the petitioner was arrested on the same day on 06.07.2015 pursuant to the NBW issued earlier and the petitioner was granted interim bail on 09.07.2015.

10. On 06.10.2015, the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the NBW issued against the petitioner was cancelled in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had been avoiding the process of the Court. He had despite the W.P.(C) 9837/2016 Page[3] of[4] undertaking given, failed to vacate the premises in question and further despite orders had failed to appear in the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent no.3.

11. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The petition and the pending application are, accordingly, dismissed.