SATYA WATI Vs. O N DEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the respondent. On 18th July, 1985, the respondent prayed for time to vacate the premises till 31st July, 1986 and agreed to give an undertaking to the court. He made the. following statement before Shri G. D. Dhanuka. Additional Rent Controller on 18th July, 1985 :

(2.) The respondent did not deliver possession of the premises No. 5009 Block No. 5, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi by 31st July, 1986. On 14th August, 1986 the petitioner filed the present petition under Sections 2(b). 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Show cause notice was issued. Mr. R. C. Trivedi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent on 23rd September, 1986 and stated that the reply to show cause was filed in the registry on 17th September, 1986. The same was not available on record. He was directed to check up with the registry. The respondent was not present inperson. It was stated that he. was lying on bed. Mr. Trivedi was directed to file a medical certificate and make proper application for his exemption. The reply alleged to have been filed by the respondent has not been placed on record as yet. It appears that no enquiry was made by Mr. Trivedi about the reply alleged to have been filed by him in the registry. Mr. Trivedi, counsel for the respondent has filed an application (.C.M. No. 1268 of 1986) today. The respondent states that he has been lying sick with heart disease and the doctor attending on him advised him bed rest till l3th November, 1986; that he has been suffering from heart disease since 1983; that he has not been able to vacate the premises as he has been laid down with the said disease. The respondent has riot appeared even today. No medical certificate as directed by order dated 23rd September, 1986 has been filed.

(3.) The respondent is trying to avoid the delivery of possession intentionally. According to respondent's admission he has been suffering from heart disease since 1983 but he gave the undertaking on 18th July, 1985 to vacate the premises on or before 31st July, 1986. In spite of opportunities he has failed to file any. reply. It is admitted by the respondent that the possession has not been delivered to the petitioner. In other words the respondent has failed to comply with the undertaking given by him and accepted by the court. The petitioner further alleges that in spite of the undertaking given by the respondent he has filed objections before the Additional Rent Controller i.e. the executing court. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent has got objections filed through his son. Satish Kumar also with a view to delay the delivery of possession. When he gave the undertaking on 18th July, 1985 he was suffering from heart disease. All these facts were known to him when he gave the undertaking. He cannot now turn round and say that he is not in a position to deliver possession on account of his illness. In the circumstances it is held that there is wilful breach of the undertaking given by the respondent on 18th July, 1985 to the Additional Rent Controller.