MARUTI KISHORE Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings continue today having been directed to be placed as unlisted as the matter was fixed for yesterday. The order of 15-11-1990 shall form part of this judgment.

(2.) IN the order of 15 November 1990 this court had come to the conclusion that the two opposite parties have commitied contempt with impunity, regardless of the undertakINg they gave to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to render the suit premises vacant. The opposite parties were resistINg the execution at the courts below IN Allahabad by leeal engINeerINg with the suit premises still contINuINg to be occupied. The objection, IN effect, before the execution court was the same as before this court IN defence The one who gave the undertakINg says he was not the allottee-tenant The allottee-tenants says, In effect, that he never gave the undertakINg ResistINg the execution proceedINgs and not permittINg the undertakINg given to take effect is contempt for the sanctity of the undertakINg given to a court. The opposite parties were contemptuous of the execution proceedINgs and laughed at it. The executINg court was made to look silly for puttINg IN process a decree for eviction, certified by a writ of certiorary by the High Court and a matter not INterfered INto by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) A violation of an undertaking given to a court and ridiculating the execution proceedings at the courts below is artifice and trickery. The case under section 21 of U. P. Urban Building (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 became terminal The decree of eviction was absolute. Skulduggery to resist or dodge eviction, is contempt of execution proceedings, which the High Court can well consider. There is contempt of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court, in addition. A landlord in a far away State of the nation, cannot run to New Delhi to fight another round of contempt proceedings. He will rush to his High Court, as the execution process was being made a joke of by the tenant.