RAJMDER PAL Vs. MAN MOHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for Contempt of Court has arisenin the following cricumstances.

(2.) The petitioners who are the owners landlords of premises No. F-20,Rajouri Graden New Delhi filed a petition for eviction under section 14(l)(e)of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The petition was initially filed by late Smt. Karmawali against lateShri Rajender Singh. During the pendency of the eviction petition Smt.Karmawali as also Shri Rajender Singh died and they were being represented by their respective legal heirs. After a prolonged trial for about tenyears the petition was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller by orderdated 29.5,1966 and the respondents were granted the statutory period of sixmonths to hand over the vacant possession. After the expiry of entire periodof six months which expired on 29.11.1986 the respondents filed a revisionpetition in this Court, being C.R.(R) No. 926/86 on 1.12.1986. The saidpetition came up for hearing before me on 4.12,1986. After looking intothe entire material on record and on hearing the learned counsel for thepetitioners I was not inclined to admit the revision petition but the learnedcounsel for the petitioners made a submission that in case sometime wasgranted to the tenants to vacate the premises the petition will not be pressed.On this submission I issued notice to the landlords. The matter again cameup before me on 8 1.1987. The parties entered into a settlement. The statements of the parties were recorded. Petitioner No. 1 namely, Smt. ManmohanKaur made the following statement :

(3.) The possession was to behanded over on 30-6-1988. However,since the possession was not handed over the present petition for Contemptof Court was filed by the landlords on 19.7 1988. Meanwhile the tenantshave filed an application for being relieved of their undertakings on theground that a fraud had been played on this Court inasmuch as the landlords had entered into an agreement to sell the property to a third person in1986 and had not disclosed that fact to this Court. It is not necessary todeal with that application of the tenants since the same pleas have beenraised in this petition for Contempt of Court and by this order that application will also be disposed of.