MURTI DEVI Vs. DEV RAJ SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to this Court by the Rent Control Tribunal with the recommendation that the respondent namely Dev Raj Soni be dealt with for committing the contempt of the Court. From the facts it appears that the respondent was a tenant in the premises which belonged to Smt. Murti Devi, the petitioner herein. She filed an eviction petition sometimes in 1974 against the respondent. During the course of trial before the Addl. Rent Controller, the parties entered into a settlement and the following order was passed :

(2.) It appears that in spite of the aforesaid order the respondent did not vacate the premises on the stipulated date. Consequently the petitioner took out execution. The respondent filed objections and ultimately the matter went to the Rent Control Tribunal. In the said proceedings, the respondent gave an undertaking to the Tribunal that he will vacate the premises on or before 30.6-1980. In spite of the said undertaking the premises were not vacated, and in these circumstances, the matter has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal for taking appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act.

(3.) Notice was issued to the respondent-contemner. He has filed an affidavit. The very first paragraph of the affidavit is unqualified and unconditional apology for the alleged contempt having been committed by the respondent. In the subsequent paragraph, the respondent has explained the circumstances under which he could not hand over vacant possession to the petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondent's wife had a house which had been let out since 1-4-1971 to one S. S. Mahal, Joint Deputy Director (A.R.G.) Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi. In fact though the tenancy was in the name of said Mahal but the premises were being used by the Intelligence Office of Directorate General of Security office of Director (A.R.G.) Gabinet Secretariat, NCM Delhi throughout. It is stated that the said tenant had promised to vacate the premises in June, 1980 and on that belief he had given undertaking to the Tribunal. However, the Directorate did not vacate the premises in spite of repeated requests by the respondent on the ground that the premises were required for National security and in public interest. Finally the premises were vacated by letter dated 27-3-1981. The respondent, being faced with this situation and in view of his undertaking given to the Court, had shifted to the house of one of his relations in spite of the fact that that house had only two rooms and large family of the respondent had to be accommodated in that small accommodation.