ASHOSH KUMAR Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Ashok Kumar and his mother Shrimati Krishna Piari are the owners of house No. 614/46, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana. The respondent Avtar Singh, filed a civil suit on the basis of his title with respect to the said house which was dismissed by the Trial Court on April 18, 1975. He preferred R.F.A. No. 321 of 1975 in this Court which was also dismissed on November 3, 1983. Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment, i.e., Letters Patent Appeal No. 298 of 1984, was also dismissed on May 22, 1984. Having lost up to the High Court, the respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioners before the Rent Controller claiming that after the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal he entered into a compromise with the petitioners and that they admitted themselves to be his tenants. The ejectment was claimed on the basis of nonpayment of arrears of rent. How8Ver, be was able to secure ex-parte order of ejectment against the petitioners from the Rent Controller on February 12, 1985. Not only that in execution of the said order the respondent was also successful in getting possession of three rooms on April 12, 1985, which were in possession of the petitioners. Whereas the remaining portion was in occupation of the tenants under the petitioners. The petitioners, in the first instance, moved the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex-parte order. However, the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller against which the petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No. 60 of 1986, in this Court. At the time of the motion hearing further execution of the ex-party ejectment order was stayed on January 10, 1986. The civil revision petition was finally allowed on July 22, 1987, and the ex-parte ejectment order dated February 12, 1985, was set aside. In the order of the High Court, the respondent was also directed to restore within 15 days to the petitioners possession of part of the premises in dispute which he secured on April 12, 1985 in execution of the ex-parte order of ejectment. Meanwhile in spite of the said orders passed by this Court at the time of the motion hearing in the said civil revision petition on January 10. 1986, the respondent also got possession from the tenants of the remaining port on of the building as the petitioners were residing at Delhi. Not only that when the case was silent back by the High Court after setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order for deciding the ejectment application on merits, the respondent on October 20, 1987, got his petition dismissed in default and, thus, continued in occupation of the house in dispute. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed the contempt petition in this Court dated December 2, 1987.

(2.) On the last date when the contempt petition came up for hearing, the respondent, who was present in person, submitted that he was prepared to deliver possession of the three rooms which he had taken from the petitioners and as directed by this Court vide order dated July 22, 1987, and got time for the said purpose.

(3.) It is no more disputed now that the possession of the three rooms taken by the respondent from the petitioners had been delivered to them on May 23, 1988. When the petition came up for hearing, the respondent was present in person along with his counsel Shri O.P. Goyal, Advocate. He was again asked as to whether he was prepared to deliver possession of the remaining portion, which he had taken after filing the ejectment application from the tenants under the petitioners. The learned Counsel after consulting the respondent stated at the bar that his client was not prepared to deliver the possession of the remaining portion. According to him the High Court order dated July 22, 1987, only directed the delivery of possession of three rooms, which were taken from the petitioners.