S BALASUBRAMANIYAM Vs. P JANAKARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the landlord and respondents are the tenants of premises No. 11-4-1957 (Old) New No. 11-4-1966, Cloth Bazaar, raichur. The complainant filed an eviction petition in HRC No. 9 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff, Raichur, under Section 21 (l) (h) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('krcact' for short), against the respondents which was allowed on 6-8-1996. The revision petition filed by the tenants under Section 50 (2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, in HRC (RP) No. 7 of 1996 was dismissed by the District Court, raichur on 18-11-1996. The second revision filed by the respondents (tenants) in HRRP No. 1870 of 1996, came up for admission before a learned Single Judge on 18-12-1996. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned Counsel for the tenants submitted that if three years time is granted to deliver back vacant possession of the premises, they will not press the revision petition. Learned Counsel for the landlord, with a view to put an end to the litigation, agreed for grant of three years time provided the tenants filed an undertaking to the Court agreeing to voluntarily hand over the premises at the end of three years. The tenants agreed. In view of it, the learned Single Judge disposed of the revision petition on 18-12-1996 granting time to the tenants, upto 31-12-1999 to vacate the premises, subject to the tenants filing an affidavit undertaking, (a) to voluntarily hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 31-12-1999; (b) to continue to pay rent for the premises, (c) not to induct any one else into the premises; and (d) not to cause damage or alter the nature of premises.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the first respondent herein filed an affidavit dated 1-4-1997 (on his own behalf and on behalf of his mother who is the second respondent herein) undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1999. In view of it, the respondents had the benefit of three years of uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the premises. But, the tenants did not vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1999 as undertaken by them. Therefore, the landlord has filed this petition alleging wilful breach of undertaking by the respondents-tenants and praying initiation of contempt proceedings against them.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, by order dated 4-4-2001 this Court recorded a prima facie finding that there was breach of the undertaking by the respondents and respondents have therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('act' for short ). On 12-4-2001, the charge was framed, relevant portion of which is extracted below: