UTTAM HUNDRAJMAL AWATRAMANI Vs. JAYANT DATTATRAYA BHALERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the two contemners who have been ordered by a learned Single Judge of this Court to be detained in Civil Prison for a month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for committing civil contempt.

(2.) The material facts are not in dispute and they are these: The first contemner Uttam is the son of one Rukmini. The second contemner Shyam is her son-in-law. The first respondent Jayant Bhalerao (hereafter for short "the plaintiff") instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 2475 of 1980 in the Pune Small Causes Court for eviction of the first contemner from a house, bearing C.T.S. No. 851/2, Bhandarkar Institute Road, on three grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, unlawful sub-letting and the tenants having acquired an alternate suitable residence. The two sub-tenants were also impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. They are not parties before us. This suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court on 15th February, 1982 and the first contemner was directed to deliver possession of the premises (hereafter, for short "the suit premises") to the plaintiff. Here it may be noted that the second contemner was not a party to that suit. The first contemner carried an appeal to the Pune District Court, being Civil Appeal No. 456 of 1982. The appeal came up before the learned District Judge, Pune, for hearing on 15th July, 1983. On that day, the two contemners filed an undertaking (Ex. 21) before the learned District Judge. We extract the material part of this undertaking :

(3.) The contemners did not abide by their undertaking. They did not deliver possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff by the agree date, inspite of his sending telegraphic reminders to them. The stand taken by them was that Rukmini was in possession of the premises, being the plaintiffs tenant. As she was not disposed to vacate the premises, the contemners pleaded their inability to comply with their undertaking. The helpless plaintiff moved this Court in contempt. The two contemners put in their appearance and reiterated their aforesaid stand before the learned Single Judge in separate affidavits filed by them.