NOELLA MARIA GONSALVES Vs. RAJENDRA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Noella Maria Gonsalves, has moved this petition for taking action for contempt against the contemnor/respondent Rajendra Patel for breach of undertaking given to this Court. The contemnor had preferred Writ Petition No.533/06 against the Order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Eviction Appeals No. 1/2005 and 2/2005 and the impugned Judgment in Rent Case No. RENT/ARC/6/1992 and RENT/ARC/2/1994 dated 24.9.2004 of the Rent Controller. 5 On 9th November, 2006 the Contemnor filed a pursis duly signed by him and his Advocate that he does not seek to challenge the impugned order and seeks leave to withdraw the petition. He further undertook to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the suit house within three months from that date. This undertaking was accepted by this Court on the same day and the Contemnor was permitted to withdraw the petition. Admittedly there is presently no grievance about the arrears of rent which is said to have been paid by the contemnor. However, there is no compliance with the undertaking to vacate the suit premises. The three months within which the contemnor undertook to vacate expired sometime in March, 2007 and the contemnor had not vacated the suit premises. Thereafter on the plea that his children were exam going, the contemnor was granted 15 days to vacate the premises by an order of this Court dated 12.4.07. Thus 15 days expired on 27.4.07. Inspite of that the contemnor did not vacate the premises and has not done so till date.

(2.) NOTICE was issued of this contempt petition on 4th May, 2007. After the contemnor was served, he sought adjournment on one pretext or the other, till the matter came up yesterday when he was represented by another Advocate from Bombay, who appeared in the present matter, that is Shri Vora. Advocate, Shri Vora, also sought to have the matter adjourned, but the request for adjournment was rejected, it having been made clear to the contemnor on the earlier occasion that no further adjournment would be granted.

(3.) STRANGELY, the contemnor's defence to the contempt petition is that he was misguided by his previous advocate to file a pursis, asking for withdrawal of Writ Petition No.533/06 and that he would like to argue the petition again. This appears to be just another ruse to somehow extend the time and continue illegal occupation of the premises. It must be noted that the pursis is not only signed by the then Advocate of the contemnor, but also by the contemnor himself. The contemnor is 54 years of age and runs a hardware shop. It is not possible to accept his plea. He has clearly signed on the undertaking and he must be held to that undertaking. In any case today, as the matter stands, there is no order of any court, setting aside the undertaking given by the contemnor. This Court sees no reason to set aside that undertaking on the specious and dishonest plea put forth by the contemnor.