VIROCHAN Vs. RAM SARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the landlord of the land in dispute which was under the tenancy of Ram Saran Dass respondent. He filed an application Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the respondent, before the Rent Controller, Jullundur. On 15th June, 1979 the Rent Controller accepted the application and ordered ejectment of the respondent. Against that order he went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 10th Oct. 1980. Later he filed revision petition (Civil Revision No. 226 of 1980) in this Court, which met the same fate on 19th Nov. 1980. However, he made a request for granting some time for vacating the premises. He also gave an undertaking that he would vacate the premises on or before 19th Jan. 1981, subject to his right to approach the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. He also undertook to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, and also the rent for the next two months on or before 19th Dec. 1980, before the Rent Controller. On the said undertaking he was granted time up to 19th Jan. 1981.

(2.) THE respondent filed a special leave petition (S. L. P. 679 of 1981) in the Supreme Court, which was again dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, directed that the order for eviction be not executed before the expiry of six months if the respondent filed an undertaking that he would hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the petite nr on or before the expiry of six months. The respondent did not file any undertaking as ordered by the Supreme Court. It is alleged that he deposited the appears of rent on 19th Dec. 1980 but he refused to vacate the premises as undertaken by him in this Court. On the other hand, he filed objection petition in execution proceedings, which conduct of the respondent amounts to contempt of Court. The objections were also dismissed but in spite of that he failed to deliver the possession.

(3.) IT is further alleged that the respondent had moved an application in the Rehabilitation Department that the property belonged to that department. He continued to pursue that application before the Rehabilitation Department. It Is, consequently, prayed that he may be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.