GITA RAM KALSY Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It arises out of the following facts. The petitioner is the owner of the shop in dispute which had been let out to the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment before the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which was allowed on 10.11.1979. The learned Appellate Authority also affirmed that judgment on 1.4.1980. The learned Appellate Authority also affirmed that judgment on 1.4.1980. The respondent filed Civil Revision No. 854 of 1980 Bhagwan Dass v. Gita Ram Kalsy, Advocate, which was disposed of by me on May 29, 1980 with the following order :-

(2.) THE petitioner contends that the respondent has not only not handed over the vacant possession of the shop to him but has subsequent to the order passed by me handed over the possession of the shop to some members of his family and as such he has put the judicial process of the Court in dispute.

(3.) HEREIN the tenant had lost in two Courts. The landlord who was an Advocate by profession was persuaded by me to show some indulgence to him. He being an officer of Court accepted my suggestion that the tenant be allowed to remain in possession of the premises for a period of two years so that in the meantime he may take steps to acquire alternate accommodation. It was brought to my notice that some other litigation between the parties was pending. In order to facilitate the compromise between the parties, I ordered that all other litigations regarding the shop pending between the parties be quashed. Had I known at that time that the tenant after getting time would go back on his undertaking, I would never have taken the rather unusual step to persuade a member of the bar to forego his right and to quash the litigation between the parties. Mr. Sarin has brought to my notice statement dated July 27, 1982 made by the tenant in the court of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, wherein he had mentioned, that his brother Shanker Lal and his mother Jamna Devi were in possession of the shop in dispute. He also admitted in that statement that he himself gave the possession of this shop to them in May, 1982.