ISHWAR PRAKASH CHOPRA Vs. ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gone are the good old days when a man would honour his words or commitment even at the cost of his life. Now-a-days the tendency is to wriggle out of the commitment or the undertaking solemnly given even to the Court by challenging the same on the ground that it is illegal, without jurisdiction or void.

(2.) In the instant case the facts are that the petitioner is a landlord who filed Distress Warrant Bases Nos. 14 of 1986 and 85 of 1986 before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur for recovery of arrears of rent from the respondent/tenant. In the said cases the articles and/or the movable property belonging to the respondent/tenant was seized and attached during the execution of the warrant in the said cases. On 27-10-1986 the respondent/tenant filed and undertaking in the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur in the aforesaid Distress Warrant Cases which was accepted by the petitioner. It is clear from para 3 of the said undertaking that the arrears of rent due upto date were Rs. 34,200/- which the respondent undertook to pay in instalments as given in the said para. He had paid an instalment of Rs. 11,700/- on the date of the undertaking itself i.e. 27-10-1986. He had further undertaken that he would pay the current monthly rent separately in advance by 5th of each calendar month. The next para which is also numbered as para 3 in the undertaking shows that the respondent agreed and gave an undertaking before the Court that the he would vacate and deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner by 31-3-1987. The said paragraph also shows that the above undertaking was an undertaking given to the Court and it was not to be a part of the compromise. He then stated in para 3 that even after vacation of the premises after 31-3-1987 his liability to clear off the arrears upto the date of vacation would continue to be the subject matter of the undertaking. In para 4 he reiterated the undertaking about vacation of the tenanted premises by 31-3-1987 and further stated that he was aware of the consequences of the breach of his undertaking about payment of arrears of rent and about vacation of the tenanted premises; viz., that the breach of the undertaking would amount to contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2 (b) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. He prayed in para 5 that the above undertaking should be recorded and the proceedings should be filed and the auction of the attached property fixed for 13-11-1986 and 27-10-1986 should be postponed till 31-3-1987 and the coustody of the attached property should be continued with the petitioner.

(3.) On the same day i. e. 27-10-1986 the learned Court of Small Causes, Nagpur disposed of the Distress Warrant Cases, on the basis of the said undertaking holding that the compromise between the parties is an undertaking by the respondent to make the payment. However, in spite of the above undertaking being given, the respondent did not make the payment of arrears of rent to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore served him with the notices dated 12/12/1986 and 5/1/1987 but without any effect. Hence, he filed Contempt Petition No. 13 of 1987 in this Court against him. In the said contempt case, a further undertaking was given to this Court that the respondent would deposit the amount in question by 29/4/1987. This Court, therefore, passed an order on 15/4/1987 that after the arrears are so deposited by 29/4/1987 the petitioner should not withdraw the amount so deposited by the respondent until the articles attached are returned to the petitioner which was to be done by 2nd of May, 1987. Accepting thus the undertakings this Court discharged the notice for contempt.