SHIV DAYAL DECD Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sections 10, 11 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against the respondent.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, landlord had filed a petition seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The said petition was dismissed on July 26, 1978 by Shri R.P. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller. Civil Revision 299/80 was filed against that order. In the revision, the tenant made a statement admitting the ground of bona fide requirements and he gave an undertaking to the Court that he would vacate the premises within 6 months. This Court allowed the Civil Revision vide order dated April 26, 1983 and passed the eviction order and granted six months time for vacating the premises.

(3.) It appears that during the execution proceedings, at first objections were filed by the tenant himself and thereafter by his son raising certain pleas which ultimately were dismissed by the Rent Controller and appeals filed were also dismissed by the Tribunal and the Second Appeal No. 246/1987 was dismissed by the High Court on July 16, 1987. While dismissing the second appeal in limine the High Court made reference to the statement made by the tenant in the Civil Revision and opined that the tenant had given undertaking for vacating the premises within six months. As the tenant did not vacate the premises in spite of the dismissal of S.A.D., it is stated that the petitioners have taken steps for getting the police aid etc., in order to get the warrants of possession executed. Proceedings are pending before the Controller in that respect.