N. N. Goswamy,j. ( 1 ) THIS petition for Contempt of Court has arisenin the following cricumstances. ( 2 ) THE petitioners who are the owners landlords of premises No. F-20,rajouri Graden New Delhi filed a petition for eviction under section 14 (l) (e)of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The petition was initially filed by late Smt. Karmawali against lateshri Rajender Singh. During the pendency of the eviction petition Smt. Karmawali as also Shri Rajender Singh died and they were being represented by their respective legal heirs. After a prolonged trial for about tenyears the petition was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller by orderdated 29. 5,1966 and the respondents were granted the statutory period of sixmonths to hand over the vacant possession. After the expiry of entire periodof six months which expired on 29. 11. 1986 the respondents filed a revisionpetition in this Court, being C. R. (R) No. 926/86 on 1. 12. 1986. The saidpetition came up for hearing before me on 4. 12,1986. After looking intothe entire material on record and on hearing the learned counsel for thepetitioners I was not inclined to admit the revision petition but the learnedcounsel for the petitioners made a submission that in case sometime wasgranted to the tenants to vacate the premises the petition will not be pressed. On this submission I issued notice to the landlords. The matter again cameup before me on 8 1. 1987. The parties entered into a settlement. The statements of the parties were recorded. Petitioner No. 1 namely, Smt. Manmohankaur made the following statement : "i am petitioner No. 1 and tenant in the property in dispute. Iadmit the bona fide requirement of the respondents. I give an undertaking to this Court that I shall hand over vacant possession of thepremises in dispute to the respondent-landlord on or before 30thday of June, 1988. I further undertake that I shall keep on payingthe rent at the agreed rate on or before the 15th day of eachsucceeding month and I shall clear the arrears of rent within onemouth from today to Rajinder Pal, respondent No. 1. If I fail toclear the arrears within one month and commit any two defaultsin payment of future rent the respondent will be entitled to executethe eviction order forthwith. I have the instructions to make similarstatement on behalf of Mrs. If I fail toclear the arrears within one month and commit any two defaultsin payment of future rent the respondent will be entitled to executethe eviction order forthwith. I have the instructions to make similarstatement on behalf of Mrs. Man Preet Kaur who is my daughterand is petitioner No. 3. An affidavit giving an undertaking to thesame effect of petitioner No. 3 will be filed in Court within twoweeks". Shri Sarabjeet Singh, petitioner No. 2 in that revision petition also made astatement exactly on the same line as was made by Smt. Manmohan Kaur. The affidavit of Mrs. Man Preet Kaur was filed. Thus, the undertaking hadbeen given by all the three petitioners in the revision petition to this Court tothe effect that the possession of the premises will be handed over to the landlords on or before the 30th day of June, 1988. Shri Rajinder Pal, that is, thelandlord also made a statement whereby he accepted the statements of thepetitioners and undertook not to execute the eviction order till 30/06/1988 provided the tenants pay the arrears of rent and keep on paying thefuture rent on or before the 15th day of each succeeding month. On the basisof the statements recorded I accepted the undertaking and disposed of thepetition in those terms. ( 3 ) THE possession was to behanded over on 30-6-1988. However,since the possession was not handed over the present petition for Contemptof Court was filed by the landlords on 19. 7 1988. Meanwhile the tenantshave filed an application for being relieved of their undertakings on theground that a fraud had been played on this Court inasmuch as the landlords had entered into an agreement to sell the property to a third person in1986 and had not disclosed that fact to this Court. It is not necessary todeal with that application of the tenants since the same pleas have beenraised in this petition for Contempt of Court and by this order that application will also be disposed of. ( 4 ) IN this petition for Contempt of Court filed by the landlords it isalleged that in view of the aforesaid undertakings the possession of thepremises was not banded over and as such the respondents had committedthe Contempt of Court. It is further alleged that even the rent as contemplated was not paid. ( 4 ) IN this petition for Contempt of Court filed by the landlords it isalleged that in view of the aforesaid undertakings the possession of thepremises was not banded over and as such the respondents had committedthe Contempt of Court. It is further alleged that even the rent as contemplated was not paid. It is stated that the petitioners were requesting the respondents to vacate the premises but the respondents had no intention to do. soand suddenly on 1. 7. 128s they locked the premises and left the same withoutgiving the address or their whereabouts. The petitioners on the same dayreceived a telegram from Shri Sarabjit Singh, respondents No. 2 saying,"you have not turned up today to take possession of the premises whichwe had vacated. " The averments are that the allegations in the telegramwere apparently false inasmuch as the petitioners had contacted the respondents several times in the last week of June 1988 and asked them to vacatethe premises and hand over possession but the respondents failed to complywith their undertakings and did not deliver the possession. However, afterreceiving the telegram petitioner No. 1 went io the disputed premises oni 7. 198s and again on 2. 7. 198s but found the premises locked. The petitioneragain went to the disputed premises on 3. 7. 1988 when respondent No 4,who is a neice of respondent No. 1 and lives in a nearby house came tothe premises and opened the locks. The petitioner was just in the process oftaking over the possession of the premises when respondent No. 4, madea complaint on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to the police station Rajourigarden that petitioner No. 1 was trespassing into the said premises. As aresult the police came on the spot and got the premises locked again andhanded over the keys to respondent No. 4. The petitioner has mentionedthe FIR number and date as lodged by respondent No. 4. According to thepetitioner the respondents had played a fraud on the petitioners and onthis Court by manipulating the entire thing. ( 5 ) NOTICE of the application was issued to the respondents The respondents appeared and filed a reply to the application. The petitioner has mentionedthe FIR number and date as lodged by respondent No. 4. According to thepetitioner the respondents had played a fraud on the petitioners and onthis Court by manipulating the entire thing. ( 5 ) NOTICE of the application was issued to the respondents The respondents appeared and filed a reply to the application. The case of the respondents in reply is that the respondents were always willing to pay the rentbut the petitioner was not accepting and as such some rent was deposited inthe Court of the Additional Rent Controller and some money orders wereaccepted by the petitioners. According to them no rent is due. As regardshandling over of the possession, the case set up is that the respondents hadvacated the premises on 30. 6. 1988 but the petitioners did not turn up to takepossession andinstead one Shri Subash Chand Batbia came to take deliveryof the possession on the plea that he had purchased the property and Shrirajinder Pal and others had told him to take possession from the respondents On coming to know the respondents brought these facts to the noticeof this Court and asked for the discharge from their undertakings. The respondents have placed on record certain documents including copy of theagreement to sell and the receipts allegedly executed by the petitioners infavour of the said Shri Subash Chand Bathla. However, these allegationsof the respondents regarding the alleged agreement to sell and receipt ofconsideration have been denied by the petitioners Surprisingly neither theagreement to sell nor the receipts are registered. The entire transactionamounting to more than Rs. 2. 50,000. 00 was allegedly paid in cash andwithout being registered Further the receipt allegedly executed by thepetitioners is attested by two witnesses and one of them is Captainroddey, who is brother of respondent No. 1. The other witness, one Shris. P Singh who according to the petitioners is son-in-law of respondent No. 1,which fact is denied by the respondents. Captain Roddey being brother ofrespoedent No. 1 is admitted. The respondents have produced one morereceipt for Rs. 25,000. 00whicb was allegedly executed by said Shri Subashchand Batbia in favour of the respondents as having received the amounttowards security in respect of premises No. F-20. Rajouri Garden, Newdelhi from the respondents. Captain Roddey being brother ofrespoedent No. 1 is admitted. The respondents have produced one morereceipt for Rs. 25,000. 00whicb was allegedly executed by said Shri Subashchand Batbia in favour of the respondents as having received the amounttowards security in respect of premises No. F-20. Rajouri Garden, Newdelhi from the respondents. According to the respondents there was an agreement between Shri Subash Chand Bathia and the respondents to the effectthat the respondents will be entitled to retain particular portion of theproperty as tenants and they would band over the other portion to Sbrisubash Chand Bathia. Admittedly there is no saledeed in favour of Shrisubash Chand Bathia. According to the respondents the execution of thesaledeed was being postponed in order to evict the respondents. ( 6 ) I have looked into all the documents very carefully. The signatureson various documents do not tally with each other and atleast with theadmitted signatures of the petitioners. Further in my opinion the contention of the petitioners prima facie, seems to be correct that these documentshave been forged and manipulated in order to continue in possession of thepremises and in fact none of these documents were ever executed by thepetitioners. Surprisingly the alleged purchaser, namely, Shri Subash Chandbathia has handed over copies of all the documents to the respondents whichwould prejudice his own right to get possession of the premises In case thedocuments has been executed and the sale deed was to be executed after thepossession was delivered to the petitioners, obviously there was no occasionfor Shri Subash Chand Bathlato handover copies of all the documents tothe respondents and he would have waited to get possession which wouldhave been delivered to the petitioners in the ordinary course on or before 30/06/1988. The receipts for Rs. 2,50,000. 00 and Rs. 15. 0001- wereexecuted on the same date, that is, on 12/07/1988 when the respondentshad already filed an application in this Court for being discharged from theirundertakings. If such was the situation Shri Subash Chand Bhathia wouldneither have paid Rs. 2,50,000. 00 nor he would have handed over the documents to the respondents. It is further surprising that when the petitionershad becomes entitled to take possession, they and Shri Subash Chand Bhathiawould enter such transaction to defeat their right of getting possession andthat also in connivance with the brother of respondent No. 1, who is theattesting witness of both the receipts. 00 nor he would have handed over the documents to the respondents. It is further surprising that when the petitionershad becomes entitled to take possession, they and Shri Subash Chand Bhathiawould enter such transaction to defeat their right of getting possession andthat also in connivance with the brother of respondent No. 1, who is theattesting witness of both the receipts. ( 7 ) ON careful consideration I am of the opinion that these documentshave been forged and have been brought into existance only in order to playafraud on this Court and to prejudice the lights of the petitioners to getpossession of the premises. ( 8 ) IN any case assuming that the documents had been executed eventhen admittedly no sale deed has been executed and Shri Bathla does notallege any right in the property and cannot possibly induct tenants of getmoney from the tenants He may have to file a suit for specific performanceand if he succeeds he may have the right to get possession of the property. Till such time that Shri Bathia gets possession the respondents have no rightto retain the possession of the premises This fact by itself does not andcannot releave the respondents of their undertakings given to this Court. Theundertakings given by them are binding on them and they have violated thesame wilfully. I therefore, bold that the respondents 1 and 2 are guilty ofcontempt of Court by wilfull breach of the undertaking to surrender vacantpossession of the premises in dispute on or before 30 6 1988. As far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, she is admittedly not residing in the premisesand has never resisted the possession to the petitioners. Accordingly I directthat respondents 1 and 2, that is, the contemners to pay fine of Rs. 2qoo. 00each. Even fine does not meet the ends of justice and I further direct that inthe event of the contemners not vacating and handing over vacant possession of the premises in dispute and putting the petitioners in possessionthereof on or before 30th day of April. 1989, the contemners will be detained in civil prison for two months for Contempt of Court. IP the event of thecontemners having handed over the possession of the premises within thesaid period there will be no further punishment except the payment of fine asdirected. 1989, the contemners will be detained in civil prison for two months for Contempt of Court. IP the event of thecontemners having handed over the possession of the premises within thesaid period there will be no further punishment except the payment of fine asdirected. ( 9 ) I, further direct that in case the contemners do not hand over thepossession to the petitioners on or before 30th day of April, 1989 and alsopay or deposit the entire arrears of rent up to that day, the Executing Courtwill take steps to render all assistance including the police help to deliverpossession to the petitioners forthwith as also for recovery of the arrears ofrent if any. The petition is disposed of accordingly.