SUMITI ROOP CHAND BHANDARI Vs. HIMMAT MAL GIRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present contempt petition stems from summary dismissal of Second Appeal No. 117/93 on 18.8.93 allowing one year's time to tenant contemner for vacating the suit shop from the date of dismissal of the Second Appeal provided he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop on or before 18th August, 1994 and further that he will not part with or deliver the possession of the suit -shop to any other person than the land lord. The tenant contemner was further to undertake that he will pay to the land lord mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises at the rate at which rent was payable in respect of suit premises regularly month by month until he physically delivered the vacant possession of the suit -shop to the land lord. The tenant -contemner was directed to execute the undertaking within 1 month from the date of the order in the executing court.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the tenant -contemner even after executing an undertaking in pursuant to the order dated 18.8.93, has not handed -over vacant possession of the suit -shop to the decree -holder land lord.

(3.) THE only ground which was argued on behalf of tenant contemner in Second Appeal No. 117/93 was that he the previous suit, the decree was based on a compromise between the parties and the Court had not recorded any finding that the tenant contemner had committed default, therefore, it cannot be said that he has already obtained benefit under Section 13(6) of the Act No. 17 of 1950 in previous suit mentioned in preceding paragraph. It was contended before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Second Appeal on behalf of tenant contemner that unless a finding of default against him was recorded in the previous suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent there cannot be any occasion for refusing benefit under Section 13(6) of aforesaid Act in the subsequent suit by both the Courts below.