Shiv Dayal And Anr. vs Amar Nath
1988 Latest Caselaw 294 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

(1) This petition has been filed under Sections 10, 11 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against the respondent.

(2) The facts, in brief, are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, landlord had filed a petition seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The said petition was dismissed on July 26, 1978 by Shri R.P. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller. Civil Revision 299/80 was filed against that order. In the revision, the tenant made a statement admitting the ground of bona fide requirements and he gave an undertaking to the Court that he would vacate the premises within 6 months. This Court allowed the Civil Revision vide order dated April 26, 1983 and passed the eviction order and granted six months time for vacating the premises.

(3) It appears that during the execution proceedings, at first objections were filed by the tenant himself and thereafter by his son raising certain pleas which ultimately were dismissed by the Rent Controller and appeals filed were also dismissed by the Tribunal and the Second Appeal No. 246/1987 was dismissed by the High Court on July 16, 1987. While dismissing the second appeal in liming the High Court made reference to the statement made by the tenant in the Civil Revision and opined that the tenant had given undertaking for vacating the premises within six months. As the tenant did not vacate the premises in spite of the dismissal of S.A.D., it is stated that the petitioners have taken steps for getting the police aid etc., in order to get the warrants of possession executed. Proceedings are pending before the Controller in that respect.

(4) The petitioners have now filed the present Contempt Petition on the 8th January, 1988 praying that as the respondent had given an undertaking to vacate the premises within six months and which undertaking is binding on him and having failed to honour the same, he is guilty of Contempt of Court and he is liable to be punished for the same.

(5) A preliminary objection has been raised that the Contempt Petition is barred by time under Section 20 of the Act. It is clear from the provisions of Section 20 of the Act that after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of commission of the contempt neither the Court can suo moto nor on an application moved by anyone take cognizance of such a contempt. The counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that earlier the petitioners were not clear in their minds as to whether the statement made by the tenant in the Civil Revision amounted to an undertaking or not. So they were not in a position to move any application for Contempt of Court and that it is only when this Court, while dismissing the S.A.D., in liming expressed the view that the statement made by the tenant in the Civil Revision amounted to an undertaking given to the Court that the petitioners discovered that the act of the respondent-tenant in not delivering the possession within six months of the date of the order made in revision amounted to Contempt of Court and hence, the petition has been moved within one year from that date. So the petition is within time.

(6) Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has cited 1974 (76) Punjab Law Reporter 23 : Sudesh Kumar v. Jai Narain and Another. In the cited case, the facts in brief were that an affidavit had been filed before the Court wherein certain facts have been pleaded, but it was not known at that time that the facts so pleaded were either false and amounted to Contempt of Court. It is only later on that on an application being moved by the petitioners that it was discovered that the averments made in the affidavit amounted to Contempt of Court and the Court held that the period of one year could be deemed to have commenced from the date the Court discovered on its own or otherwise that the contempt has been committed. The facts of the cited case are totally different. In the present case, according to the petitioners, a statement has been made by the respondent-tenant in Court giving an undertaking to vacate the premises and on the basis of the said statement, an eviction order was passed. So, it cannot be held that the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest or the Court were not aware of the undertaking given by the respondent-tenant in Court. The respondent would be deemed to have committed the Contempt of Court when he failed to honour his undertaking after the expiry of the period of six months. That period was also known to the petitioners and to the Court. So, the limitation for filing the Contempt Petition commenced from the date when the period of six months expired. Hence, the Contempt Petition filed after the expiry of more than one year from that date, on the face of it, is barred by time. Accordingly, I dismiss this Contempt Petition as barred by limitation.