(1.) This litigation has a chequered history but for the purposes of this petition it is not necessary to give the details of all the litigation except to briefly state few facts. The premises in dispute were let out by the petitioner to the respondent under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent The Control Act (hereinafter called 'Act') for the first time in the year 1968 for a period of three years and after the expiry of said period, there were also subsequent lettings each time under Section 21 of the Act. The respondent remained in continuous possession. However, in the year 1977 the petitioner moved execution petition before the Rent Controller seeking possession of the premises. This Court directed that the petitioner be put into possession. The Supreme Court by its celebrated judgment reported in 15(1979) DLT (SC) 30 S-B. Noronah v.Prem Kumari Khanna, set aside the order passed by this Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and directed the Controller to go into the question of the validity of sanction under Section 21 of the Act and such other objections as may be available to the tenant in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment. The Additional Rent Controller, after remand, dismissed the application for execution and upheld the objections filed by the tenant- respondent and held that the permission granted under Section 21 of the Act was invalid. The first appeal filed bytbe petitioner was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal and order of Additional Rent Controller was upheld,
(2.) Aggrieved from the order of Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal, the petitioner filed a second appeal in this court (S.A.O. 306 of 1985). This appeal was disposed of by order made by this court on 19th February 1987.
(3.) The petitioner, in this contempt petition, alleges the breach of undertaking given by the respondent and recorded in the order made on 19th February 1987. The said order reads as under :-