HARBANS LAL SABHARWAL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed on behalf of the landlord under the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), on the allegations that the respondent had violated the undertaking given by them in the affidavit dated 4.6.1986, of Sham Lal, respondent, wherein it was stated that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord after the expiry of the period as ordered by the High Court subject to the decision in the appeal filed by him in the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the special leave in the Supreme Court was dismissed on June 5, 1986. In spite of that, in the execution proceedings taken by the landlord, the respondents filed false and frivolous objections under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, in order to delay their ejectment. Thus, they violated the undertaking and are liable to be punished under the Act. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the plea taken is that Baldev Raj who is said to be one of the landlords, had entered into a fresh tenancy with them on August 1, 1986 and, therefore, they were not required in law, to surrender the vacant possession of the shop to Harbans Lal Sabharwal, the petitioner. On September 18, 1987, Sham Lal, respondent, was present in Court and he undertook to vacate the premises and to hand over the possession to the landlord-petitioner on his behalf as well as on behalf of his brother Joginder Lal and also to pay all the arrears of rent upto date. The case was then adjourned to October 1, 1986.

(2.) IT is no more disputed that on September 27, 1986, vacant possession of the premises, No. 5577, Saudagar Bazar, Ambala Cantt, has been handed over to the petitioner and he also received the rent there of upto date.

(3.) PRIMA facie, there was a violation of the undertaking given by the respondents in the affidavit of Sham Lal, respondent, dated June 4, 1986, but as soon as they put in appearance in this Court, they agreed to vacate the premises and to hand over the vacant possession and also to pay all the arrears of rent upto date. Admittedly, this has been done on September 27, 1986. Under the circumstances, no further action is called for.