The Madras High Court has sentenced an advocate, A Mohandass, to four months of imprisonment for contempt of court, citing his persistent refusal to vacate a rented property despite eviction orders issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court..A Bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the advocate did not show any genuine remorse or regret for his actions. The Court, therefore, sentenced him to four months of imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of ₹2,000.“Serious punishment is warranted in this case, since the contemnor herein has been continuously violating and disobeying the orders of Court and committing contempt of Court at every stage and despite having given an undertaking that he will vacate the premises, has started his mischief again by laying a new claim ... instead of showing any bona fide remorse and repentance ... fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and such a person has to be sentenced to imprisonment. Accordingly, the contemnor is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-," the Court ordered on July 8.It opined that when such serious instances of misconduct and contempt are not dealt with a firm hand, it may amount to giving unscrupulous lawyers a licence to take law in their own hands..The Court also ordered the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer.It added that when a lawyer who shows scant respect for court orders is allowed to continue in the legal profession, it will have a serious impact on the very institution itself.“The contemnor, with all immunity, wants to challenge the orders of the Courts on the strength of his membership in the Bar. His conduct, though will not amount to professional misconduct, will certainly fall within the ambit of other misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,” it said..The advocate had rented a building from a man named Parsanchand in 2006. Following the landlord’s death in 2009, his son, P Vikash Kumar, requested the advocate to vacate the premises as he intended to use it for his own personal needs.When the advocate refused to vacate the property, Kumar filed a rent control petition in 2015 and secured a favourable order in 2021. This eviction order was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority. The lawyer challenged this verdict before the High Court, which in 2024 ordered him to vacate the property within two months. He then approached the Supreme Court, which declined to overturn the eviction but granted him time till May 31, 2025, to vacate the premises. The advocate was also ordered to file an affidavit before the High Court, undertaking that he would vacate the property within this timeframe. Accordingly, the advocate filed an undertaking before the High Court, albeit belatedly, assuring that he would vacate the premises by May 31. By this time, the landlord had filed a contempt case against the lawyer before the High Court. .The lawyer eventually did not follow through on his undertaking. In an explanation filed subsequently, he also made allegations against the bailiff appointed by the High Court to oversee the eviction process. He also maintained that the rent control proceedings did not cover a part of the property, which he refused to vacate. On June 5, when the Court was about to pass detailed orders in the contempt case, the lawyer assured that the landlord can take control over the property. The lawyer added that he would not enter the premises when this happens. However, the Court noted that when a court-appointed official went to oversee the eviction process, the lawyer was not only present at the site but also raised hue and cry and tried to obstruct the process of taking inventory. "This aspect clearly shows that the contemnor has never shown any remorse or repentance for his bad behaviour," the Court said. .The Court further remarked that as a member of the legal fraternity, advocate Mohandass was expected to show good conduct both within and outside the courtroom. "The contemnor, being a member of lawyer's community, is expected to show utmost good conduct not only in the Court but also in the Society. When a member of the legal profession is bent upon disobeying the orders of this Court, it will, in fact, lead to an opinion in the minds of public that with such immunity as a member of legal fraternity and the Bar, one can violate the orders of the Courts. If such character or disobedience is not dealt with by the Court seriously, the faith and confidence the common man reposes on the judiciary will be eroded," it said.It also refused to accept the apology offered by the lawyer in his affidavit."Merely a single line in the last paragraph of the explanation filed by the contemnor to show as if he has offered his unconditional apology, in the view of this Court, cannot be construed as if he has tendered his apology bona fidely ... As lawyers, it is their professional obligation to respect and comply with court orders, even if they disagree with the decision. Particularly, a lawyer who is a litigant, he has no other option except to comply with the orders of the Court," it observed. .Advocate Kushal Kumar Sancheti appeared for the landlord.Advocates GS Mani and G Anandaraj appeared for Mohandass..[Read Order]
