C. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THE present contempt petition has been filed by thepetitioner/landlord against the respondent Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra for hisfailure to deliver the possession of the impugned premises No. 17-A/20. WEAKarol Bagh, New Delhi. The notice in the petition was issued on 6/02/1992, and the matter has been adjourned on different occasions. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent/contemnershri Vidya Prakash Chopra was a tenant in the impugned premises. Theorder of eviction was passed against him by the Court of Additional Rentcontroller, Delhi in suit No. E-487/8 3/04/1987. The respondentfelt aggrieved by this order and filed Civil Revisionno. 498ofl987in thiscourt. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 13/11/1990, when Sunanda Bhandare, J. after hearing Counsel for thepetitioner/landlord passed a detailed order upholding the findings of the Additional Rent Controller. The Revision, as a consequence, was dismissed on 13/11/1990. Thereafter, the respondent filed two applications beingc. M. No. 3013 and 3014/90 in this Court praying that the revision petitionmay be restored to its original number and thus be decided on merits. Noticewas issued in these applications and a detailed order was passed by learnedsingle Judge on 17/05/1991. The earlier order of eviction was upheld asno ground was made for review of the judgment passed on 13/11/1990. The respondent was, however, given time to vacate the premises on or before 28/01/1992. The said undertaking was accepted by the Court andthe respondent was granted time accordingly. It may be relevant to reproducethis undertaking, which reads as follows : "statement of Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra, petitioner on SA :i am the petitioner in the above case. I undertake tothis Court that I will vacate the premises in question and handover vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent on orbefore 28/01/1992. I will continue to pay at the agreedrate by the 15th of each month as compensation for use andoccupation of the premises. I further undertake that I willnot sub let or part with possession of the premises to any otherthird party while the same are in my occupation and will alsonot damage the premises. My undertaking may be accepted. " ( 3 ) THE respondent, however, was not able to hand over the possessionof the impugned premises which necessitated the filing of the present contemptpetition. My undertaking may be accepted. " ( 3 ) THE respondent, however, was not able to hand over the possessionof the impugned premises which necessitated the filing of the present contemptpetition. The respondent took the stand in his reply that he has vacated thepremises) which was in his possession and his brother Shri Nand Kishorechopra was withholding the delivery of possession in respect of two rooms,kitchen, bath room and W. C. The notice of contempt was accordingly issuedto the brother of the respondent Shri Nand Kishore Chopra for contempt andhe has put in appearance through the Counsel and has filed his reply. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Shrimaheshwar Dayal has submitted that the responsibility of vacation of thepremises squarely laid with the respondent Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra inview of his undertaking given to this Court on 27/05/1991, where he alsoundertook that he will not sublet or part with possession of the premises toany of the third party, while the same are in his occupation and will also notdamage the premises. It has also been brought to my notice that the tenancyof the impugned premises was in the name of the respondent/contemner Shrividya Prakash Chopra, with effect from 1/06/1963, and a photostatcopy of the Rent Note is filed by the petitioner before this Court. ( 5 ) SHRI L. R. Gupta, who has appeared for the respondent/contemnershri Vidya Prakash Chopra has stated before me that his client is willing andhas in fact, honoured the undertaking given to this Court by vacating part ofthe premises which was in his possession and he has, therefore, committed nodisobedience to the order of the Court or has violated the undertaking. Hehas further stated that in case, this Court has come to the conclusion that thereis any disobedience, non compliance or non fulfilment of the undertaking, therespondent/contemner tenders his unqualified and unconditional apology fornon delivery of remaining portion of the premises and prays that warrants ofpossession with police aid be issued and possession of the remaining portionof the premises be taken over and delivered to the petitioner and the respondent be pardoned. ( 6 ) THE contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra has also-filed his replyand reiterated that he has not given any undertaking nor has he violated anyundertaking or violated any of his commitment, as such, the petition underreply be dismissed, Shri J. C. Mahindroo, learned Counsel has further arguedthat the tenancy in favour of his client Shri Nand Kishore Chopra is independent and he is a tenant in his own right. He has contended that the tenancywas in the name of the late father of Shri Nand Kishore Chopra and, therefore, the same is heritable and he is a tenant in his own right. He has REFERRED TOto the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mst. Surayya Begum v. Mohd. Usman and Others, 44 (1991) Delhi Law Times 293 and Textile Association v. Balmohan G. Karup, 1991 R. L. R. (SC) 305, wherein it has been held that one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant can always pursue his remedy, if he isnot made a party to the eviction proceedings. ( 7 ) THE contention of Shri Nand Kishore Chopra that he is a tenantin his own right is totally misconceived and has no basis, either in facts or inlaw. In the connected proceedings between the same parties the Contemnershri Nand Kishore Chopra had filed the written statement and taken the pleain the Court of Shri Dinesh Dayal A. R. C. that he was neither a sub tenantnor the premises were sublet to him. The following paragraph may bereproduced in this regard : "as prior clarified respondent No. 2 herein only lives along with. his brother respondent No. 1 herein, who alone retains legal possession of suit premises as respondent used to live along with theireldest brother Shri S. P. Chopra, previous tenant of the instant suitpremises. Thus, it is specifically denied that respondent No. 2herein is occupying the suit premises as unauthorised occupant subtenant/assignees of respondent No. 1. It is reiterated that respondent No. 2 neither is in possession of any part of the tenancypremises as its legal possession is retained by respondent No. 1,whose respected mother Smt. Laxmi Devi wife of late Shri Des Rajis as well living along with respondent No. 1 in the portion untenablyearmarked as subletted. " ( 8 ) THE respondent No. 2- at that time was none other than thepresent Contemner, Shri Nand Kishore Chopra. " ( 8 ) THE respondent No. 2- at that time was none other than thepresent Contemner, Shri Nand Kishore Chopra. The legal possession of theentire premises was admitted in favour. of Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra. Thecase, which is now sought to be set up by the contemner Shri Nand Kishorechopra, only after the expiry of that period granted by this Court on a specificundertaking by the respondent contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra, is anafter thought. The Undertaking may not have been filed specifically by Shrinand Kishore but he never claimed himself to be residing in the impugnedpremises in his own right. He also took no steps at any time to asser hisright and was fully aware of the proceedings pending before this Court, in whicha specific undertaking was filed by his brother Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra. Reference may be made to the following paragraph of the reply filed in thiscontempt petition: "11. That Shri Nand Kishore was coming to the Court on thehearing in the above case, and when this respondent gave anundertaking, it was on his assurance that he would vacate theportion of the premises in his occupation for his residence. Believing the said representation and assurances of his younger brotherthe respondent gave the undertaking to this Hon ble Court that hewould vacate the premises on or before 28. 1. 1992. The respondentdid not think even for a moment that Shri Nand Kishore, hisyounger brother would not honour his assurance and comply with theorders of this Hon ble Court and would see that the undertakinggiven by this respondent is complied with by vacating the portion ofthe premises in his possession. "therefore, ths above would indicate that the Contemner Shri Nand Kishorechopra was fully aware of the proceedings pending in this Court and of theorder of eviction made therein. ( 9 ) THE matter has been adjourned on different dates in the hope thatthe contemners shall purge the contempt and show their bona fide by vacatingthe impugned premises but unfortunately this course has not been adopted bythem. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Contemner Shri Nandkishore Chopra, on instructions, has vehemently argued that he has not giventhe undertaking to this Court and is continuing to stay in the impugned premises as a matter of right. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Contemner Shri Nandkishore Chopra, on instructions, has vehemently argued that he has not giventhe undertaking to this Court and is continuing to stay in the impugned premises as a matter of right. This argument is totally misconceived and has beenraised as an after thought and with a malafide intent to deprive the petitionerlandlord of the possession of the premises on the basis of the undertakinggiven by his brother Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra. Learned Counsel Mr. J. C. Mahindroo has further informed me that the Contemner Shri Nand Kishorechopra has now filed the suit, as well as, the objections under Section 25 of thedelhi Rent Control Act, before the Trial Court in respect of the portion,which is alleged to be in possession of his client. The said objections havebeen filed, after issuance of notice of contempt and during the pendency of thepresent proceedings. This is obviously an after thought and the contemner Shrinand Kishore Chopra was fully aware of the proceedings, in which an undertaking was filed before this Court. ( 10 ) THE only course, which is left open to this Court is to takeserious view of the matter, in view of the undertaking filed by the- respondentshri Vidya Prakash Chopra in this Court and the said undertaking not beinghonoured. The opportunity was provided to his brother Shri Nand Kishorechopra, who also failed to vacate the premises in his possession particularlyin view of the fact that he never, at any stage, claimed independent title to thepremises. The tenancy was composite and it has always been held to be so. Therefore, there was no question of his having any independent title to anypart of the premises. In Mrs. Pramila v. Capt. R. D. Khosla (1978) 14 D. L. T. 22, it was held by this Court that when the undertaking to vacate the premisesbefore a certain date was given in the High Court, but the said undertakingwas not honoured, the Contemner was held guilty of contempt and waspunished for six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000. 00. ( 11 ) IN Brij Bhushan Jaidku v. Sneh Verman, 1991 R. L. R. (Note) 60,the learned Single Judge of this Court again held that if the tenant violatedthe undertaking to vacate the premises, then the High Court may directimmediate delivery of possession by breaking open lock by police aid. 2000. 00. ( 11 ) IN Brij Bhushan Jaidku v. Sneh Verman, 1991 R. L. R. (Note) 60,the learned Single Judge of this Court again held that if the tenant violatedthe undertaking to vacate the premises, then the High Court may directimmediate delivery of possession by breaking open lock by police aid. ( 12 ) THE respondent-contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra was alsoduty bound to have the premises vacated, although it may be said that hisconduct in trying to convince his brother to honour the undertaking given byhim for the impugned premises may be a mitigating factor in the award ofpunishment for violation of the undertaking filed before this Court, particularlyin view of the fact that he has already handed over possession of the partof the premises to the petitioner, as well as, has rendered unqualified andunconditional apology to this Court. The other Contemner Shri Nand Kishorechopra has persisted in asserting his independent right to retain the other partof the premises. ( 13 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold thecontemners guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and, assuch, liable for punishment in the present proceedings. The Contemners aredirected to hand over possession of the premises No. 17-A/20, W. E. A. Karolbagh, New Delhi, to the petitioner on or before 28/05/1992. In case, thepossession is not delivered to the petitioner in the ordinary way during thisperiod, the petitioner shall be provided the police aid for vacation of theimpugned premises. The Contemners are further directed to appear in this,court on 29/05/1992, to report compliance and receive punishment.