Satya Wati vs O.N. Sehgal
1986 Latest Caselaw 353 Del

JUDGMENT

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the respondent. On 18th July, 1985, the respondent prayed for time to vacate the premises till 31st July, 1986 and agreed to give an undertaking to the court. He made the. following statement before Shri G. D. Dhanuka. Additional Rent Controller on 18th July, 1985 :

"STATEMENT of respondent on S.A.-I may be granted time to vacate till 31-7-1986. I give undertaking to the court that I shall handover vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner on or before 31-7-1986. I am in possession and shall not part with the same to anybody". R.O.& A.C. sd/- O. N. Sehgal. C.C.P. No. 126 of 1986 I identify O. N. Sehgal. sd/- Ashok Popli, Advocate."

Counsel for the petitioner made the following statement :

 "STATEMENT of V. K. Makhija, Advocate for petitioner.- The respondent may be given time to vacate the premises till 31-7-1986 if the undertaking given by him is accepted by the court.    R.O.& A.C. sd/- G. D. Dhanuka sd/- Vk Makhija"    

 The court passed the following order :     

 "UNDERTAKING given by the respondent is accepted and he is granted time to vacate on or before 31-7-1986. File be consigned.   

 SD/-G. D. Dhanuka 18-7-1986"    

(2) The respondent did not deliver possession of the premises No. 5009 Block No. 5, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi by 31st July, 1986. On 14th August, 1986 the petitioner filed the present petition under Sections 2(b). 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Show cause notice was issued. Mr. R. C. Trivedi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent on 23rd September, 1986 and stated that the reply to show cause was filed in the registry on 17th September, 1986. The same was not available on record. He was directed to check up with the registry. The respondent was not present inperson. It was stated that he. was lying on bed. Mr. Trivedi was directed to file a medical certificate and make proper application for his exemption. The reply alleged to have been filed by the respondent has not been placed on record as yet. It appears that no enquiry was made by Mr. Trivedi about the reply alleged to have been filed by him in the registry. Mr. Trivedi, counsel for the respondent has filed an application (.C.M. No. 1268 of 1986) today. The respondent states that he has been lying sick with heart disease and the doctor attending on him advised him bed rest till l3th November, 1986; that he has been suffering from heart disease since 1983; that he has not been able to vacate the premises as he has been laid down with the said disease. The respondent has riot appeared even today. No medical certificate as directed by order dated 23rd September, 1986 has been filed.

(3) The respondent is trying to avoid the delivery of possession intentionally. According to respondent's admission he has been suffering from heart disease since 1983 but he gave the undertaking on 18th July, 1985 to vacate the premises on or before 31st July, 1986. In spite of opportunities he has failed to file any. reply. It is admitted by the respondent that the possession has not been delivered to the petitioner. In other words the respondent has failed to comply with the undertaking given by him and accepted by the court. The petitioner further alleges that in spite of the undertaking given by the respondent he has filed objections before the Additional Rent Controller i.e. the executing court. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent has got objections filed through his son. Satish Kumar also with a view to delay the delivery of possession. When he gave the undertaking on 18th July, 1985 he was suffering from heart disease. All these facts were known to him when he gave the undertaking. He cannot now turn round and say that he is not in a position to deliver possession on account of his illness. In the circumstances it is held that there is willful breach of the undertaking given by the respondent on 18th July, 1985 to the Additional Rent Controller.

(4) 1. therefore, hold the respondent guilty of contempt of court. The breach of the undertaking is willful. I deem fit that he should be imprisoned and fined. I accordingly impose a punishment of simple imprisonment for a term of one. month and a fine of Rs. '20001- upon the respondent. Warrant of arrest to undergo simple imprisonment for one month be issued at once". Fine be also recovered from him.

(5) Counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that the respondent himself and also through his son got filed objections to execution of eviction order. He requests that the Additional Controller be directed to issue warrant of possession with respect to the premises in question immediately. From the judgment and order dated 18th July, 1985 in Case No. 393 of 1982 Smt. Satyawati vs. Onkar Nath Sehgal passed by Shri G. D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi I find that the undertaking was given by the respondent after the passing of the said order of eviction. I direct the Additional Rent Controller concerned to issue warrant of possession with respect to the premises in question immediately and get the possession delivered to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Adjourned to 14th November, 1986.