Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 237 (DEL)

SARBATI DEVI v. OM PARKASH

2002-02-18

R.C.CHOPRA

body2002
R. C. CHOPRA ( 1 ) THE petitioner-landlady has filed this petition under Section 2 and 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the respondent-tenant has violated the undertaking given by him to the Court on 19/04/1999 in terms of which he was required to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to her on or before 30/04/2000. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondent which was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller vide orders dated 31/01/1998. The respondent-tenant filed a Revision petition before this Court. On 19/04/1999, the respondent gave an undertaking to the Court that the possession of the tenanted premises would be handed over to the landlady on or before 30/04/2000. Upon this undertaking, the Court disposed of the Civil Revision filed by the respondent ordering that in view of the undertaking given by the respondent (petitioner in the Revision Petition) the landlady, i. e. present petitioner will not execute the decree till the time granted by the Court. It is pleaded that inspite of this undertaking which was accepted by the Court, the respondent has not so far handed over the possession of the premises to her and as such, he should be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. ( 2 ) A notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings for having commited Contempt of Court be not initiated against him. The respondent did not file any reply inspite of opportunities. Vide orders dated 17/04/2001, he was directed to appear in person on 18/04/2001 as it was found that on every date, the respondent was changing his counsel. On 18/04/2001, the respondent appeared along with his counsel and pleaded that he had already left the premises in question and the same were now in occupation of the sons and daughters of his brother who had an independent right in the tenanted premises. Hon ble Mr. Justice S. K Mahajan was of the considered view that the plea being taken by the respondent appeared to be an after thought as on 19/04/1999 when undertaking was given by him to the Court, he had not informed the Court that besides him certain other persons were also residing in the premises in question and were claiming rights therein. Justice S. K Mahajan was of the considered view that the plea being taken by the respondent appeared to be an after thought as on 19/04/1999 when undertaking was given by him to the Court, he had not informed the Court that besides him certain other persons were also residing in the premises in question and were claiming rights therein. Accordingly, it was held that the respondent, prima facie, appeared to be guilty of having committed contempt of the Court and as such, a notice was issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court. Respondent who was present in the Court accepted the notice. The matter was adjourned for filing a reply but the respondent did not file any reply inspite of three opportunities given to him. On 15th January, 2002 when respondent was present in person, he submitted that the possession of the premises in question was handed over by him to all those who were living there. He admitted that he had not handed over the possession to the petitioner- landlady. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person. I have gone through the records. ( 4 ) IN the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent had given an undertaking to the Court in Civil Revision No. 470/1998, on 19/04/1999, undertaking to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the present petitioner on or before 30/04/2000. He had further undertaken that he would not sublet, assign or part with possession of the premises in question and will not create any third party interest therein. A further undertaking was in regard to the payment of Rs. 5. 00 per month on account of rent/charges for use and occupation. The Court accepted the aforesaid undertaking and accordingly protected the petitioner from eviction till 30th April, 2002 by which date, the respondent had undertaken to vacate the premises in question. A further undertaking was in regard to the payment of Rs. 5. 00 per month on account of rent/charges for use and occupation. The Court accepted the aforesaid undertaking and accordingly protected the petitioner from eviction till 30th April, 2002 by which date, the respondent had undertaken to vacate the premises in question. The plea of the respondent that he has vacated the premises but the children of his younger brother continue to be in occupation is not tenable for the reason that while giving undertaking, he had not stated that there were some others also in occupation of the premises in question over whom he had no control and who were claiming some independent title to the premises. This Court is satisfied that the respondent is bent upon depriving the petitioner of her right to recover the possession of the premises in question and as such, first he gained time by giving undertaking and now when the time taken by him has elapsed, he is coming up with another plea that he is not in a position to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the petitioner-landlady. This stand of the respondent is in utter violation of the undertaking given by him to the Court on 19/04/1999 as well as the orders passed by this Court on the said date on the basis of his undertaking. This Court is of the considered view that respondent is raising a sham and bogus plea to keep his kith and kin in the premises in question. The conduct of the respondent is reprehensible and it appears that he has no respect for the courts of law. No ground whatsoever is made out to absolve the respondent of the charge of having committed Contempt of Court. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed and the respondent is held guilty of having committed contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of sub-clause (3) of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971, the respondent is directed to be detained in Civil Prison for a period of six months. The petition stands disposed of.