SAROJINI RADHAMMA Vs. BHASKARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has come up for consideration in this contempt case is whether after having made an undertaking that the tenant would vacate the tenanted premises on the strength of the order of this Court he could wriggle out of the undertaking by not surrendering the premises and whether such a conduct would amount to civil contempt under the Contempt of courts Act, 1971.

(2.) THIS Court allowed C. R. P. 1666/02 preferred by the landlady and granted time to the tenant upto 30. 6. 2004 for vacating the premises on condition that he should file an undertaking before the Rent control Court within one month stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid time and that he would pay the arrears of rent if any and also future rent. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below for easy reference. "considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant time to the tenant upto 30. 6. 2004 for vacating the tenanted premises provided he files an undertaking before the Rent Control court within one month stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid time and that he would pay the arrears of rent if any and also future rent. " "r. C. O. P. 70/97

(3.) WE are of the view after giving an undertaking before the Rent Control Court that the tenant would surrender the premises on the strength of the order passed by this Court in C. R. P. 1666/02, the tenant is duty bound to vacate the premises and the landlady shall not be driven to the executing Court for delivery. In cases where time is not granted by this Court, necessarily executing Court has to be moved. In cases where tenant has given an undertaking either before this Court or before the Rent Control Court tenant is duty bound to vacate the premises voluntarily. Failure to comply with the undertaking, in our view, would enable the other party to initiate contempt of court proceedings.