SHAMKANT TUKARAM NAIK Vs. DAYANABAI SHAMSAN DIGHODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks action against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 2-A under the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed wilful breach of the undertaking dated the 26th November, 1986 given by respondent No. 1 to this Court in Writ Petition No. 4805 of 1985.

(2.) The petitioner being the landlord of a one room premises admeasuring about 18ft. x 13 ft had filed Suit No. 61 of 1976 against respondent No. 1 under the Rent Act for possession. By a judgment and decree dated the 13th September, 1982 a decree for possession was passed against respondent No. 1. She challenged the said decree by filing Appeal No. 151 of 1982, but that appeal was dismissed on the 21st September, 1985. Being aggrieved, she preferred in this Court Writ Petition No. 4805 of 1985 and that petition met the same fate and was rejected on the 7th November, 1985. However, time to vacate the suit premises was granted up to 6th December, 1986 on her giving an undertaking which she gave on the 26th November, 1986. By this undertaking she stated that she was residing in the suit premises and she undertook to this Court to quit and vacate the suit premises and and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the petitioner and to none else on or before the 6th December, 1986. She further undertook not to induct any third party to the suit premises and not to create any 3rd party interests in respect of the suit premises.

(3.) Some time after the aforesaid undertaking was given by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 who is none else but the son of respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 12 of 1986 for a declaration that he was the tenant in respect of the suit premises. The claim set up by him was one under section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. According to him his father was the original tenant and after his death on the 14th May, 1962 he had become the tenant under section 5(1)(c) as he was the member of the fathers family residing with him at the time of his death. According to him the mere fact that on the death of his father, the tenancy stood in the name of respondent No. 1, the same did not detract from his claim of being a tenant under section 5(11)(c). Respondent No. 1 applied for an interim injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree obtained against respondent No. 1 as against him. However, no interim relief was granted in his favour. However, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 1987 filed by respondent No. 2 an ad-interim injunction was isued restraining the petitioner from executing the decree against him. Though the time granted to respondent No. 1 to vacate was up to the 6th of December, 1986, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition in June 1986 in view of the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No. 2.