Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
So far as question of limitation is concerned, according to Mr. Rege, the undertaking or statement of the Advocate for the landlord was recorded by Justice Patankar on 20.2.1996 and the contempt petition is filed by the tenant on 2.8.1999. Therefore, according to Mr. Rege, even if it is accepted that the tenant was informed by Municipal Council about completion of building, the contempt petition is barred by limitation under Section 20. This argument has to be rejected because in the undertaking given by the landlord to Justice Patankar no time limit is fixed by him for giving accommodation to the tenant in newly constructed building. Therefore, till the premises are given to the tenant in the newly constructed building, there is continuing contempt on the part of the landlord. Possession was not given to the tenant in the newly constructed building till filing of the complaint, and therefore, period of limitation would not start as alleged by Mr. Rege and at any rate the period of limitation would be running against the landlord on every day including first of August, 1999 i.e. the day preceding filing of the contempt petition. Thereafter the contempt petition came for admission before Justice H. L. Gokhale on 19.8.1999 and on 11.2.2000 I passed the impugned order putting the tenant in possession. That order dated 11.2.2000 is passed within one year of filing of the contempt petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Contempt Petition No. 339 of 1999 with Civil Application No. 1731 of 2000
Decided On: 12.10.2000
Shriniwas R. Shelar Vs. Girish Kanhaiyalal Oswal
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.G. Deshpande
Citation: 2001(2) BOM CR 12
