AYISSA BIBI UMMA Vs. ABOOBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is sought to be committed for contempt of court for committing breach of an undertaking given by him to this Court. We issued notice, in the first instance, dispensing with personal appearance, but, after hearing arguments of both sides, directed the respondent to appear in person on 29lh November 1971. The respondent failed to appear; and we issued a non bailable warrant to have him arrested and produced before us today. After knowing about the warrant, the respondent has appeared.

(2.) The petitioners filed a petition before the Rent Control Court in 1961 for evicting the respondent from a building. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition; but, on appeal, the Appellate Authority allowed the petition and ordered eviction. The respondent took up the matter in revision before the District Judge; and the District Judge reversed the decision of the Appellate Authority and restored the decision of the Rent Control Court. Against that, there was a further revision to this Court; and this Court set aside the decision of the District Judge and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The District Judge once again came to the same conclusion and dismissed the petition for eviction. There was another revision against that order; and the same learned Judge of this Court again set aside the judgment of the District Judge and ordered eviction. The respondent then moved this Court to grant him some time for vacating the premises which the learned Judge granted. And the respondent moved the Supreme Court for a special leave, wherein also he did not succeed. Then he moved the Single Judge of this Court once again for granting him some time more; and when the matter came for hearing, the counsel of the petitioners also agreed for granting time. And the learned Judge granted time for two months, viz., till 5th May 1971.

(3.) Now, the contempt proceedings have been started by the petitioners on the allegation that the undertaking given by the counsel of the respondent was an undertaking to this Court and the respondent committed breach of that undertaking. We may extract hereunder the undertaking: