TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. AVTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this Contempt petition may in brief be noticed thus :- It deserves to be noticed at the very outset that the parties to this litigation are close relations. Roshan Singh, brother of the respondent herein, filed a suit through his brother Avtar Singh as his attorney, for mandatory injunction directing defendant Avtar Kaur, respondent herein to vacate the house and surrender its possession on the plea of it being in her occupation as a licencee. The suit was contested by Avtar Kaur. Her case was that her brother Roshan Singh had entered into an agreement with her on 22.2.1978 for transfer of the house in her favour. The suit was put to trial and the same was ultimately decreed by the then Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur by judgment and decree dated 16.3.1991. Plea of the defendant as taken in the proceedings of the suit was rejected by the trial court. Defendant-Avtar Kaur, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1991 passed by the trial Court, filed appeal which was disposed of by learned District Judge on 9.6.1993 on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Appellant before the District Judge made a statement which was reduced into writing wherein she admitted that her brother Roshan Singh was the owner of the house in question who was residing with his family in England and that if and when he came to India and asked for the house being vacated for his residence, she will vacate the same. In view of this statement made by Avtar Kaur, the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) ROSHAN Singh came to India on 13.8.1993 and on 14.8.1993, he asked the respondent herein to vacate the house in the presence of Avtar Singh, Mehar Singh and Tarlochan Singh but the respondent refused to vacate the house. Roshan Singh ultimately died in India on 16.8.1993 who was survived by his son Tarlochan Singh and others. Tarlochan Singh son of Roshan Singh served noticed dated 2.9.1993 through his counsel, Shri P.S. Sangha, Advocate, Hoshiarpur calling upon the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the house, and for non-compliance of the order, he would initiated contempt proceedings for violating the undertaking given to the court. Notice was replied by Sh. Sham Lal Handa, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. A copy of the reply is Annexure R-1 to the written statement filed to the contempt petition. The broad stand taken in the reply to the notice is that she is not liable to vacate the house. She called upon Tarlochan Singh to withdraw the notice unconditionally. Since the house was not vacated, Tarlochan Singh filed the present contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying that the respondent be proceeded against and punished under the aforesaid Act.

(3.) THIS matter came up for hearing before Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. on various occasions before it was listed before me. On 24.8.1994, Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. granted three months' time to the respondent to comply with the undertaking given in court (i.e. in the court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur). Despite the time having been granted, the respondent did not surrender the possession. Under the directions of this Court, the respondent came present in Court on 14.3.1995, 15.3.1995 and 2.5.1995. She is even present in Court today also. On the dates she came present in Court, she was asked if she was ready to surrender the possession of the house in question even now. She took a definite stand that she is not prepared to vacate the house and will vacate the same only when Tarlochan Singh comes to India permanently and not otherwise.