D. H. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners were the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 303 of 1978 filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Petlad for recovering vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises from the opponent herein as also from the original defendant No. 1 Patel Shanabhai Zaverbhai who was the original tenant. The decree for possession of the suit premises was sought by the petitioners on the ground of subletting by the said Patel Shanabhai Zaverbhai to the present opponents Kachhiya Amritlal Gordhandas. It appears that Patel Shanabhai Zaverbhai had vacated the suit premises much earlier by subletting the same to the opponent. The learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Petlad decreed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 6-2-1985. The present opponent and the original defendant No. 1 had filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Assistant Judge Kheda at Nadiad. The said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 10-12-1985 and the original decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Petlad was confirmed. The present opponent and original defendant No. 1 pursued the matter further and filed Civil Revision Application No. 335 of 1986 before this Court. This High Court by its order dated 17-3-1986 rejected the said Civil Revision Application summarily the same having been withdrawn (Coram: M. B. Shah J. ). While allowing the Civil Revision Application to be withdrawn M. B. Shah J. observed in his order dated 17-3-1986 that Mr. Patel appearing on behalf of the respondents has agreed not to execute the decree upto 1 on an usual undertaking filed by the petitioners. It was further stated in that order that the undertaking should provide that the petitioners would hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on or before 1-4-1987 that they would not part with the possession of the suit premises in favour of anybody; that they would go on paying mesne profits regularly and if there is arrears of rent the petitioners would pay it within four weeks from 17-3-1986. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order the opponent filed an undertaking before this Court on 25-3-1986. We have seen and perused the original undertaking which is on affidavit and which bears the signature of the present opponent Amrutlal Gordhanlal Patel (Kachhiya Amritlal Gordhandas ). ( 2 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order the opponent filed an undertaking before this Court on 25-3-1986. We have seen and perused the original undertaking which is on affidavit and which bears the signature of the present opponent Amrutlal Gordhanlal Patel (Kachhiya Amritlal Gordhandas ). He has stated in the undertaking inter alia that he will vacate the rented premises on or before 1-4-1986 without raising any objection whatsoever to the respondents original plaintiffs. He has further stated that he gives an undertaking that he would not alienate or transfer the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever to any one and that he would hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on or before 1-4-1987 to the landlord-plaintiff alone and none else. He has further stated in the said affidavit that the members of his family residing with him would not raise any objections or obstruction in the handing over of possession to the respondents. He has further stated that he would pay mesne profits at the rate of R3. 7/- per month to the respondent directly at his address till he occupied the said suit premises. ( 3 ) THE opponent failed to abide by the undertaking and did not hand over the vacant possess on of the suit premises on or before 1 Instead he filed Civil Application No. 420 of 1987 for extension of time to vacate. Despite the resistance by the petitioners herein the Court by its order dated 8-4-1987 granted further time to the opponent till 31-5-1987 to vacate the suit premises on condition that the opponent filed the undertaking on the same day before the Court. Copies of both the undertakings are produced by the petitioners and they are at Annexures B and D to the petition. The copy of the order by which this Court extended the time to vacate is at Annexure C. We have also perused the original second undertaking given by the present opponent. The second undertaking is dated 8-4-1987 and is on affidavit. He has stated therein that he would vacate the rented premises on or before 31-5-1987 without raising any objection whatsoever to the respondent-original plaintiffs. He has failed to abide by his second undertaking also. Hence this Miscellaneous Civil Application. The second undertaking is dated 8-4-1987 and is on affidavit. He has stated therein that he would vacate the rented premises on or before 31-5-1987 without raising any objection whatsoever to the respondent-original plaintiffs. He has failed to abide by his second undertaking also. Hence this Miscellaneous Civil Application. ( 4 ) BY an order dated 16-6-1987 rule was issued on this Miscellaneous Civil Application returnable on 6-7-1987 and the opponent was directed to remain personally present in this Court on that day at 11-00 A. M. This order was also not abided by the opponent and hence we were constrained to issue a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 500. 00 (rupees five hundred only) directing the opponent Kachhiya Amritlal Gordhandas of Petlad District Kaira to remain present in this Court on 17-9-1987. He is present before us. We asked him as to why he has not abided by the undertakings given by him to the Court. He states before us that he is unable to vacate the suit premises. He has thrice stated before us that we may shoot the members of his family. We appreciate that this outburst on his part is out of exasperation. Nevertheless the contempt remains. We also asked him whether he would still vacate the suit premises but his answer is the same that we can shoot the members of his family. In view this plant conduct as well as the adamantine attitude shown in our presence we are clearly of the view that he has defined the order of this Court and has unmistakably committed the breach of the undertakings given by him. He is clearly guilty of the wilful breach of the undertakings given by him to this Court and therefore guilty of Civil contempt as defined in sec. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ( 5 ) THE opponent has not only given undertaking to this Court twice but in our presence also he has not shown any remorse for not having abided by the undertakings given by him. But has shown before us a contumacious persistency in telling us that we may shoot the members of his family. We must therefore hold that the contempt is of such a nature that it has substantially interfered with due course of justice. But has shown before us a contumacious persistency in telling us that we may shoot the members of his family. We must therefore hold that the contempt is of such a nature that it has substantially interfered with due course of justice. This appears to us to be indeed a case of deliberate flouting of the undertakings given by a litigant who had no intention it seems to abide by them. We have no option but to convict him and to give him an appropriate sentence under the Contempt of Courts Act. We thus hold him guilty of civil contempt. We direct that since in our opinion the imposition of only fine will not meet the ends of justice and a sentence of imprisonment is necessary he be detained in the Civil Prison at Nadiad for a period of four months and further sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 1 0 (rupees one thousand only) under secs. 12 and 12 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 The opponent- contemner who is present in Court is ordered to be taken in custody forthwith. ( 6 ) MR. A. J. Patel the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in a case like this the conviction of the opponent for contempt does not serve the ends of justice. The substantial justice would be secured by the petitioners only if the opponent is held fast to his undertakings of handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises. The petitioners would get substantial justice only by securing the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises from the opponent. ( 7 ) MR. Patel invited our attention to the case of Saleemuddin and Another v. Sharfuddin and Others AIR 1980 Del 39 . The Delhi High Court observed therein that the Court had the power to enforce an undertaking. It could be enforced by committal. It could be enforced by execution. Accordingly a warrant of possession was issued and a direction was given that police aid should be given to the landlord for obtaining possession of the premises. ( 8 ) MR. The Delhi High Court observed therein that the Court had the power to enforce an undertaking. It could be enforced by committal. It could be enforced by execution. Accordingly a warrant of possession was issued and a direction was given that police aid should be given to the landlord for obtaining possession of the premises. ( 8 ) MR. Patel also invited our attention to the case of Mohammad Idris and Another v. Rustam Jehnngir Bapuji and Others AIR 1984 SC 1826 wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the following words: On merits the learned counsel submitted that the undertaking given was not in respect of the property concerned and that in any case the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving certain directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of Court. We find no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel. There was a clear breach of the undertaking given by the petitioners and we are of the opinion that the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach. . . ( 9 ) A further reference was also made by the counsel for the petitioners to a judgment reported in Virochan v. Ram Saran Dass 1982 Criminal Law Journal 1219 for the proposition that the High Court has inherent powers to issue warrant of possession to do justice between the parties (vide paragraph 15 of the judgment ). ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid factual circumstances and the legal position as emerges from the several authorities cited before us and discussed above we accept the prayer and direct that a warrant of possession be issued in respect of the suit premises as described in the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 303 of 1978 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Petlad and the warrant of possession be sent to the District Court at Nadiad for its execution. ( 11 ) THIS Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed and rule made absolute accordingly. Respondent punished. .