SITA RAM KHANNA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondent for the alleged disobedience of undertaking alleged to have been given by him to the Court on 1.5.1997 and for the alleged attempt to interfere with the administration of justicce by filing objections to the execution petition preferred by the petitioner

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(A) and 14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Later on only the ground under Section 14(1)(K) of the Act was pressed. The petition was allowed subject to proceedings to be taken under Section-14(11) of the Act, which says that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (K) of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14, if the tenant, within such time, as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition imposed on the landlord by any of the authorities referred to in that clause or pays to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct.

(3.) It is alleged that during the proceedings initiated under Section 14(11) of the Act, it was stated on behalf of the Union of India that the breaches of misuser could not be condoned, nor regularized permanently. As such on 26.6.1979 an order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 12.2.1981. The respondent preferred second appeal (SAO.104/81) in this Court, which was also dismissed on 1.5.1997. In the said appeal, the respondent gave an undertaking that he will have the breaches regularized on permanent basis from Land & Development Office and in case the Land & Development Office does not regularize and condone the breaches, the respondent shall stop the misuser forthwith. In any case misuser would be stopped within two months unless condoned by Land & Development Office and in case of default, the respondent would be liable to eviction forthwith. It is also alleged in the petition that the breaches were not regularized on permanent basis and the respondent failed to vacate the premises. Thus, the respondent has contravened the undertaking given by him. As the respondent failed to abide by his undertaking, the petitioner filed execution petition before the Additional Rent Controller in which notice was directed to be issued to the respondent, who on receipt filed objections. It is the petitioner's case that the very act of filing of objections by the respondent amounts to interference in the administration of justice. As the petitioner is entitled to. seek respondent's eviction, the respondent with malafide intent is trying to block the petitioner's way by of raising objections.