SUKH DEO PRASAD Vs. CHETU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHHETU Ram, the opposite party, tenant in the accommodation owned by Sukhdeo Prasad applicant. Sukhdeo prasad file an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,Rent and Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in his favour. This application was allowed and the opposite party preferred writ petition No. 5153 of 1982 in this Court. This writ petition came up before me on 10.5.1983 when its was rejected. At that stage Sri R.N. Gupta who had appeared on behalf of opposite party, SC 73 was it directed in the Court's order dated 10.5.1983 that the eviction order shall not be executed against the opposite party for four months. In this application for contempt the applicant has started that this undertaking has not been honoured by the applicant inasmuch as he has not vacated the accommodation in question. Notice was issued to the opposite party and he filed his reply thereafter. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party he started that in compliance of the undertaking given by him he had already vacated the accommodation. By my order dated 16.2.1084, I had directed the opposite party to appear before this Court in person. In pursuance of this order, opposite party appeared in person and his statements been recorded.

(2.) IN his deposition before this Court the opposite party has admitted that his children continue to live in the house in respect of which the undertaking was given. He has also admitted that his wife mostly stays with her children. In other words the wife of the opposite party also continue to live in the house in respect of which the undertaking was given. In regard to himself opposite party started that he has left the accommodation and he was now passing his day on the foot -path in Bashiratgunj. This statement of his is belied by the address is "r/o Durvijaiganj, Police Station Haks Hindola, Lucknow". The learned counsel for the applicant has suggested to the opposite party that his statement before the Court that he was not residing in the house was false but he denied the said suggestions. The denial of the suggestion is motivated.

(3.) THE learned counsel for opposite party tried to submit that opposite party is not in his property sense. The opposite party has been examined by me and I did not find anything in his behaviour which may substantiate the submission made by the learned counsel.