(1.) This motion of Contempt came to be moved originally by Jayantilal Manilal Shah (Deceased) through his Heir and Legal Representative Smt. Madhuben Shah. The say of the petitioner in the motion of Contempt is rather lengthy.
(2.) H.R.P. Suit No. 4083 of 1974 came to be filed by the deceased Jayantilal Shah against the present respondent for obtaining a decree of eviction qua the premises bearing No. 645/2 situated at Char Rasta, Nava Darwaja Road, Kalupur, Ahmedabad. The Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad was pleased to grant a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, who is the respondent before us, on 13/11/1978. This decree of eviction came to be confirmed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. 13 of 1979 under judgment and orders dated 16/02/1982. This decree confirmed by the first Appellate Court came to be further confirmed by this Court under the orders dated 13/02/1995. This had so happened because the Civil Revision Application No. 626 of 1982 filed by the defendant-tenant who is the respondent before us came to be dismissed. However, while dismissing the above said C.R.A., this Court was pleased to grant the time up to 28/02/1998 to the respondent before us for the vacation of the premises, but subject to the condition that the respondent files before this Court an undertaking in usual terms within a period of six weeks. It appears that no undertaking as directed came to be filed by the respondent before us within the stipulated period. Any how. he moved M.C.A. No. 758 of 1995 asking for some time, "say about six weeks" for the filing of the undertaking. This Court had granted this time under the orders dated 10/07/1995 in M.C.A. 758 of 1995. It appears that, even during the extended period no undertaking came ,to be filed by the respondent. Instead of that M.C.A. No. 1266 of 1995 came to be moved by the respondent for extension of the time of two days to file the undertaking. This M.C.A. came to be allowed and ultimately on 7/09/1995, the respondent before us had filed the undertaking which came to be taken on record under the orders of this Court bearing even date. The respondent before us was, therefore, required to hand over the actual physical vacant possession of the premises to the landlord during the stipulated time-frame, but instead of so doing, he had moved M.C.A. No. 291 of 1998 before this Court seeking a further extension for a period of one year, so as to enable him to vacate the premises and to make the alternative arrangement for his residence. These proceedings taken out by the respondent came to be dismissed.
(3.) Therefore, now the say of the petitioners before us is that, the respondent is guilty of disobeying and not fulfilling the undertaking which was given by him before this Court on 7/09/1995. We have pointed out that the motion was moved by one of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Jayantilal Shah, namely, Smt. Madhuben Shah. Looking to the affidavit-in-reply, wherein a specific contention has been raised by the respondent saying that all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased are not on record; an application came to be moved by the petitioner saying that all other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased be allowed to be brought on record. This application has been decided and the prayer has been granted. The net result, therefore, is that, now instead of Smt. Madhuben Shah alone, all the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Jayantilal Manilal Shah are on record before us in these proceedings.