ASHOK ASANDAS BAHERWANI Vs. ISHWAR PRAKASH CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dt. 17-2-1988 passed by Shri K. J. Rohi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur (In-charge Judge of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur) on Exh.1 in Small Cause Darkhast No. 103 of 1988, whereby the learned Judge directed the issue of warrant of possession.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are rather unusual. The applicant is a tenant of house situated on plot No.3, Shirkey Layout, Chhaoni, Nagpur, since the month of April, 1985 on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-. The non-applicant is the owner of the said premises and hence the landlord of the applicant. Since the applicant was not paying the rent regularly, the non-applicant applied for distress warrant before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, vide Application No. 14 of 1986 and the moveables belonging to the applicant came to be attached. At the relevant time the rent of Rs. 16,200/- was outstanding against him. Even thereafter the applicant failed to pay the rent and further outstanding arrears were to the tune of Rs. 9,000/-. Another application for distress warrant was also filed and that was registered as Application No. 85 of 1986. The goods belonging to the applicant were again attached. The goods so attached under the two warrants were to be sold on 27-10-1986 and 13-11-1986. It appears that the applicant with a view to save the goods from being sold gave an undertaking before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, whereby he agreed to pay the entire rent and also vacate the house by 31st March, 1987. Some amount was paid by the applicant in cash.

(3.) Since, however, the applicant did not abide by his undertaking a petition for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act was filed by the non-applicant. The said application was registered as Contempt Petition No. 13 of 1987. When the petition was listed for hearing, the applicant again gave an undertaking that he would pay the entire amount of rent on or before 29th April, 1987. Acting on this undertaking the contempt petition was disposed of by this Court. Once again the applicant committed the breach of the undertaking. The premises were also not vacated by the applicant.