MOHINI SAYAL Vs. KUSHAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for having committed wilful breach of an undertaking given by himon 24/8/1979 to Smt. Manju Goel,Additional Controller, Delhi in proceedings for recovery of possession under section 21 of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958.(cereinafter ,called at the Act). The respondent made the following statment on 24/8/1979 belore the Additional Controller;i with draw the objections field by me to the petition under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control act. The petitioner is entited to possession of the disputed premiles in pursuance of the order obtained by them under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. I undertake to vacate the premises by 30/6/1980 and to deliver peaceful vacant possetion to the general atorney of smt. Mohini Syal i.e. Shri K.C. Syal of 14, Tagore Park, New Delhi. I may be granted time till then" sd/- Kaushal Kumar sb.00 Manju Goel 24/8/79 ARC, Delhi." After the staement by the respondent, statement of the petitioner's counsel was recorded who agreed to grant time to the respondent up to 30/6/1980. The Additional Controller passed the following order on 24/8/1979.

(2.) The main contention of the respondent is that in view of the judgment in S.B. Noronah vs. Prem Kumari Khanna, AIR 1980 S.C. 193 the permission granted by the Additional Controller under Section 21 of the Act on 30th March, 1977 was a nullity and therefore all proceedings subsequent thereto including the undertaking of the respondent are null and void and not binding upon him. The argument is that the petitioner let out the premises for residence-cum- commercial purposes, that the permission dt. 30th March, 1977 was a mindless order, that the conditions of Section 21 of the Act were not complied with and therefore the order is a nullity. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to various portions of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, but no observation has been brought to my notice that the nermission granted by the Additional Controller under Sectional of the Act was a nullity or void.

(3.) In para 18 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows :