SARBATI DEVI Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlady has filed this petition under Section 2 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the respondent-tenant has violated the undertaking given by him to the Court on 19/04/1999 in terms of which he was required to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to her on or before 30/04/2000. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondent which was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller vide orders dated 31/01/1998. The respondent-tenant filed a Revision petition before this Court. On 19/04/1999, the respondent gave an undertaking to the Court that the possession of the tenanted premises would be handed over to the landlady on or before 30/04/2000. Upon this undertaking, the Court disposed of the Civil Revision filed by the respondent ordering that in view of the undertaking given by the respondent (petitioner in the Revision Petition) the landlady, i.e. present petitioner will not execute the decree till the time granted by the Court. It is pleaded that inspite of this undertaking which was accepted by the Court, the respondent has not so far handed over the possession of the premises to her and as such, he should be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) A notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings for having commited Contempt of Court be not initiated against him. The respondent did not file any reply inspite of opportunities. Vide orders dated 17/04/2001, he was directed to appear in person on 18/04/2001 as it was found that on every date, the respondent was changing his counsel. On 18/04/2001, the respondent appeared along with his counsel and pleaded that he had already left the premises in question and the same were now in occupation of the sons and daughters of his brother who had an independent right in the tenanted premises. Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.K Mahajan was of the considered view that the plea being taken by the respondent appeared to be an after thought as on 19/04/1999 when undertaking was given by him to the Court, he had not informed the Court that besides him certain other persons were also residing in the premises in question and were claiming rights therein. Accordingly, it was held that the respondent, prima facie, appeared to be guilty of having committed contempt of the Court and as such, a notice was issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court. Respondent who was present in the Court accepted the notice. The matter was adjourned for filing a reply but the respondent did not file any reply inspite of three opportunities given to him. On 15th January, 2002 when respondent was present in person, he submitted that the possession of the premises in question was handed over by him to all those who were living there. He admitted that he had not handed over the possession to the petitioner- landlady.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person. I have gone through the records.