BANWARI LAL CATYAL Vs. MADAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Banwari Lal is the owner and landlord of H. No. 3446 Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. He had let out the same to Madan Lal, respondent No. 1 or rent in July, 1973. The landlord filed an ejectment application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Madan Lal, tenant respondent on 16th August, 1981 on the ground that he required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation along with other grounds. After a protracted trial and contest by the tenant, the petition was allowed on 30th September, 1983 by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved against the ejectment order, the tenant Madan Lal filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority Chandigarh which was admitted on 19th November, 1983. After a number of adjournments, the matter was compromised on 10th October, 1984, on the statement of the parties. Respondent No. 1. Madan Lal stated as under :

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that Madan Lal, tenant, never took up such a plea in the ejectment application filed against him before the Rent Controller, though Prem Kumar Sharma, his son in law, respondent No. 2 was already living with him in the said premises, on account of his close relationship and, thus, the order of ejectment was equally binding on him. However, in the above said suit filed by respondent No 2 he also filed an application under 6, 39 R. 1 and 2 for grant of an ad interim injunction. It has also been alleged in the petition that Prem Kumar, respondent No. 2 also filed another suit for declaration to the effect that the eviction order dated 10th October, 1994, was null and void and not enforceable, as the same was collusive and that Prem Kumar was a tenant on the demised premises since 1st July, 1973. Since respondent No. 1 Madan Lal did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute in compliance with his undertaking given before the appellate authority, according to the petitioner, he has thereby wilfully and intentionally committed contempt of court. In support of his contention, he referred to Behari Lal v. Puran Chand, 1985 PLR 391, Chhagonbhai Norisinghai v. Soni Chandubhai Gordhanbhai, AIR 1976 SC 1909, Gita Ram Kalsy, Advocate v. Bhagwan Dass, 1983 PLR 310; 1983 (2) RCR 249.

(3.) IT may be stated here that time in this Court was allowed to respondent No. 1 to comply with his undertaking and hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute. In spite of that opportunity having been given of the same and persisted that he was not liable for contempt of court because no such undertaking was given by him. Sh. J.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, also submitted that no such undertaking was given by his client and, moreover, there being ad interim order of injunction passed by the Civil Court in favour of his son-in-law, respondent No. the petitioner-landlord was not entitled to vacant possession In any case, argued the learned counsel, no case for the contempt of court was made out against his client Madan Lal. In support of his contention he referred to Diwan Durga Dass v. B. R. Kishore and others, AIR 1959 All. 211, K. Ramdas Shenoy v. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipi AIR 1976 SC 994 and Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin AIR 1976 SC 1528. -