JUDGMENT R. S. Dhavan, J - 1. These proceedings continue today having been directed to be placed as unlisted as the matter was fixed for yesterday. The order of 15-11-1990 shall form part of this judgment. 2. In the order of 15 November 1990 this court had come to the conclusion that the two opposite parties have commitied contempt with impunity, regardless of the undertaking they gave to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to render the suit premises vacant. The opposite parties were resisting the execution at the courts below in Allahabad by leeal engineering with the suit premises still continuing to be occupied. The objection, in effect, before the execution court was the same as before this court in defence The one who gave the undertaking says he was not the allottee-tenant The allottee-tenants says, In effect, that he never gave the undertaking Resisting the execution proceedings and not permitting the undertaking given to take effect is contempt for the sanctity of the undertaking given to a court. The opposite parties were contemptuous of the execution proceedings and laughed at it. The executing court was made to look silly for putting in process a decree for eviction, certified by a writ of certiorary by the High Court and a matter not interfered into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Beyond this, two writ petitions were filed by Arun Kumar Bhasin resisting execution. Anil Kumar Bhasin's undertaking at the Bar of the Supreme Court was on 4-1-1989. In both the records of the writ petitions the text of the undertaking eludes the record. As this court has already observed that the two opposite parties are brothers, multiplicity of proceedings went even to the extent that the landlord had to file a writ petition before this court to protect himself and the decree of eviction being frustrated in the gamble which risks ligiation by these who thwart a legitimate process of the court. 3. This court sets on record today that but for the indulgence which was sought by learned connsel on 15 November 1990 this court would have awarded maximum punishment as prescribed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 After the defence has been taken by the opposite parties and the proceedings were closely watched, the contemnors became conscious of what the charges were that stood against them 4. A violation of an undertaking given to a court and ridiculating the execution proceedings at the courts below is artifice and trickery. The case under section 21 of U. P. Urban Building (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 became terminal The decree of eviction was absolute. Skulduggery to resist or dodge eviction, is contempt of execution proceedings, which the High Court can well consider. There is contempt of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court, in addition. A landlord in a far away State of the nation, cannot run to New Delhi to fight another round of contempt proceedings. He will rush to his High Court, as the execution process was being made a joke of by the tenant. There ought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking on an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. 5. In a very recent case, in re : Tapan Kumar Mukerji v. Sri Hero- moni Mondal, Judgments today 1990 (4) SC 399, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a contempt matter has observed :- " ...we should like to put a warning that where a case of wilful disobedience is made out the courts will not hesitate and will convict delinquent officer and that no leience in the court's attitude should be exepected from the court as a matter of course merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the service career of the concerned officer." 6. The Supreme Court was dealing with a public Servant facing an action for contempt. The present matter arises out of a landlord tenant issue Time and again the courts will grant indulgence to tenants, exercising their powers under equity to save sufferance to tenants from cryptic execution. Court's repose faith in tenants to exercise discretion that they be permitted to reside in. the accommodation to wind up their affairs and have a reasonable time to pack up their bags. Court's repose faith in tenants to exercise discretion that they be permitted to reside in. the accommodation to wind up their affairs and have a reasonable time to pack up their bags. This faith will be eroded if undertakings were to be dishonoured and this will be to the detriment of tenants under eviction, as a class All this will happen when confidence and faith will be permitted to be shaken Thus this is not a matter in which the court can overlook the punishment under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, merely because the opposite parties having become wiser on being concerned to a situation that they have committed contempt of judicial proceedings and of the solemn un ertaking to the Supreme Court by disrespecting, violating and dishonouring it. 7. So serious was the disrespect for the execution proceedings and so callous and wilful the avoidance of the undertaking that the opposite parties did not even pay the damages after the day they were to render the suit premises vacant, as they had undertaken. From 30 June 1989, the opposite parties went even further and their contempt for the decisions of the courts of law were such that they did not even deposit damages before the execution court after 30 June 1989. This was tendered to the landlord during the last 24 hours. The opposite parties have had the most advantageous situation (1) in extending their stay by one year and four and a half months after the Supreme Court had required them to vacate the suit premises on or before 30 June 1989; and (2) damages have been suffered by the landlord and a punishment to the opposite parties gets him nothing; the fine is payable to the State. 8. If any situation is to be mitigated and the quality of mercy is to be reckoned then much will depend upon how the opposite parties act and, if indeed, they are genuine to show to the court their earnestness for seeking mercy, they have to respond accordingly. They have after all occupied the premises without the authority of law, unwarranted and unauthorisedly, and for its mitigation the least that they can do is to pay damages for use and occupation. They have after all occupied the premises without the authority of law, unwarranted and unauthorisedly, and for its mitigation the least that they can do is to pay damages for use and occupation. After the date to vacate had crossed and they continued to oocupy the suit premises, if the damages are not to be exemplary, it will not be unreasonable that they pay the same amount, in addition to what they would have paid as rent. This implies that whereas they have paid Rs 160/- per month they ought to pay a like amount as damages for use and occupation beyond 30 June 1989 until yesterday i.e. 19 November 1990, when the suit premises were rendered vacant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties said that this would be done. Then, let it be done. Proceeding adjourned untill after lunch. 9. As already indicated that an undertaking was violated with impunity and consciousness. There is no occasion for the court to show any compassion as beyond reasonable doubt a contempt has been committed and the effect of this contempt has been felt at the executing court in Allahabad, where the decree for eviction has lain frustrated. Litigating public cannot be encouraged that such a situation can continue or the court will not rise to the occasion to book people violating its orders. Whereas this court would have gone to its logical conclusion to award optimum punishment under section 12 of the Act, this court is extenuating it. Punishment cannot be waived 10. The severity of the punishment has been lessened. The reasons are thus : Upon advice of learned counsel opposite oarties have during the adjourned proceedings paid damages in the like amount which would have been the rent. This implies that the opposite parties have paid damages for use and occupation of the premises from 30 June 1989 (the date before which they were to vacate the suit premises until 19 November 1990 when they are said to have rendered the suit vacant. But, all of this was an after thought and the opposite parties took recourse to steps after having watched these proceedings and were absolutely conscious of the fact that they have been judged guilty for contempt and that an indictment was going to be followed by punishment. But, all of this was an after thought and the opposite parties took recourse to steps after having watched these proceedings and were absolutely conscious of the fact that they have been judged guilty for contempt and that an indictment was going to be followed by punishment. In such circumstances the law is very clear that the court cannot get con- passionate and dilute an indictment and not follow it with conviction. Opposite parties have committed contempt, of this, this court is not in doubt. The law enjoins the court that a punishment must follow. Regard being had to the overall circumstances, the court will only go thus far that they may not be incarcerated. Opposite parties shall pay a fine of Rs 500/- each. This fine shall be deposited with the Registrar, High Court within one week. Thus the action for contempt against the opposite parties succeeds with costs on them, separately, to be paid by each party. 11. Lastly, notwithstanding that these were contempt proceedings the court appreciate the manner in which learned counsel for the opposite parties conducted this case gracefully and acknowledging throughout that respect for the court and orders of the court are paramount. Petition allowed.