Short Note : 1. This is an application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) and under section 18(3) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, moved by the applicant, who is tenant in nonresidential accommodation of the non-applicant, against the non-applicant landlord, for punishing him in contempt for breach of his undertaking given in this Court and for disobedience of order dated 4-3-77 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 122 of 1976. 2. In this appeal following order was passed on 4-3-1977 : "Decree for ejectment has been granted by the lower Court for reconstruction of the suit premises. Mr. Naokar submits that his client is prepared to hand over back the possession of the shop as newly constructed within six months of handing over possession of the suit shop by the appellant to the respondent landlord. He further submits that the newly built suit shop to be handed over to the appellant will be of the same area. As regards rent, Mr. Naokar as well as Shri Dube, counsel for the parties submit that in case their respective clients are not able to come to an agreed rent of the newly constructed shop they will get the same determined by this Court summarily. Accordingly appellant shall hand over the possession of the suit shop to the respondent-landlord within one month from today, and thereafter within six months the respondent landlord shall complete the newly constructed shop and call upon the appellant to occupy the same on a reasonable rent to be offered by him; in case the amount of rent offered to the appellant is not acceptable, the matter shall be reported to this Court for determination of the rent of the newly constructed shop. In any case the respondent landlord is restrained from leasing out the newly constructed shop to any body else except the appellant till further orders," Held: From the definition of civil contempt enacted by section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it is clear that in case of disobedience of judgment, decree, direction order, writ or other process of the Court, it must be shown that disobedience is wilful. So also, in case of breach of undertaking given to the Court, it must be shown that the breach is wilful. So also, in case of breach of undertaking given to the Court, it must be shown that the breach is wilful. The essential ingredient is wilful disobedience or breach and not any and every disobedience or breach which may be due to various reasons such as delay due to unavoidable circumstances and t he like. That it was wilful has to be alleged and proved. Wilful postulates purposefulness and clear intention to flout. If wilfulness is not made out the Court will refuse to exercise its power to punish the alleged contemner in contempt. 3. The non-applicant has very candidly stated that he had been in September 1977 handed over possession of a platform infront of the suit shop and that the delay in reconstructing the shop and delivering it back to the applicant after reconstruction, was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control viz., (a) delayed gram of permission for reconstruction by municipal corporation (b) non-availability of cement and (c) issuance of Injunction by tenant of the non-applicant in other shop i.e. Bashlranbai. This reply was duly supported by an affidavit filed by the non-applicant on 15-9-78. The applicant has not submitted any counter affidavit 10 rebuttal thereof. As such, it cannot be regarded that the non-applicant has acted in Wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court or has committed any, wilful breach of his undertaking given to this Court. Non-applicant was acting with all bonafides at his command. In the present case it appears that the applicant Wanted contempt proceedings to be used as a lever for' obtaining speedy execution of the order passed by this Court on 4-3-77 in second appeal No. 122 of 1976. Purpose of securing execution of Court's order for one's benefit is not to be readily encouraged. AIR 1952 Cal. 669 , AIR 1855 Cal. 182 and AIR 1967 All. 93 , distinguished. 1976 JLJ 604 , AIR 1969 SC 189 , AIR 1969 Delhi 137 and AIR 1970 Mad. 14 , relied on. Petition dismissed.