Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The sanctity of the undertaking was emphasized in that case. The contemners were held guilty of contempt and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on each one of them and they were also ordered to suffer imprisonment for a fortnight each and it was also observed that such an imprisonment will nor be carried out if they conform to their undertaking to Court and vacate the promises in suit and put the applicant in possession thereof within a week. The learned single Judge has noticed in detail the facts in Salamuddin and Ors. v. Sharfuddin AIR 1980 Cal 39, but we will like to briefly notice them here also. In that case, an application for ejectment was moved by the landlord against the tenant and an order of eviction was passed on August 18, 1967. as no appeal was preferred, the order became final. The tenant died in 1968 leaving behind a widow, three sons and two daughters. The widow also died in January, 1975. One of the tenant's son and daughter, namely and Mst. A, filed objections under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976, claiming to be covered by the definition of the term 'tenant' and could not be ejected in execution of the eviction order. The objections were dismissed. They preferred appeal which was also dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the objectors prayed for stay of execution of the eviction proceedings. The stay was granted on the applicants' furnishing security for the due performance of the decree and A's father-in-law gave a surety bond. The objectors preferred a second appeal in the High Court The objectors did not press their appeal and prayed for time to vacate the premises by December 31, 1977. He gave an undertaking to this effect to the Court which was accepted. The appeal was dismissed. A direction was made that the order of the eviction will not be executed before December 31, 1977, A few days before December 31, 1977. H, another son of A filed a suit for declaration claiming that the eviction order passed against M was inexecutable against him and an interim injunction restraining the landlord from executing the eviction was sought. It was declined. An application was moved by the landlords for execution, One MS filed objections in the execution proceedings. While the objections were pending, the landlords submitted an application for taking action for contempt on February 6, 1978 against S on the basis of the undertaking given by him. A contention was raised on behalf of S that he is helpless in delivering the possession as members of the family of H, who was lodged in jail are residing in the disputed premises and they did not allow him to deliver the possession and did not vacate the same. It was observed by the learned Judge that how can it now be urged with any show to reason that S is unable to deliver the possession. On these facts, it was found that the breach was wilful and that he (S) has broken the terms of the undertaking. It was further observed that was a case of blatant breach of the undertaking given to and accepted by a Court of law. S's counsel was present on April 7, 1977. He made a statement in the same terms. The learned Judge observed that H's suit and M.S.'s objection were engineered proceedings, which seems to have been brought at the instance of Section. The observations were objected to but the learned Judge was of the view that they were not without reasonable basis. The learned Judge observed as under: