Rajinder Pal And Ors. vs Man Mohan Kaur And Ors.
1989 Latest Caselaw 218 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) This petition for Contempt of Court has arisen in the following cricumstances.

(2) The petitioners who are the owners landlords of premises No. F-20,Rajouri Garden New Delhi filed a petition for eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The petition was initially filed by late Smt. Karmawali against Late Shri Rajender Singh. During the pendency of the eviction petition Smt.Karmawali as also Shri Rajender Singh died and they were being represented by their respective legal heirs. After a prolonged trial for about ten years the petition was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller by orderdated 29.5,1966 and the respondents were granted the statutory period of six months to hand over the vacant possession. After the expiry of entire period of six months which expired on 29.11.1986 the respondents filed a revision petition in this Court, being C.R.(R) No. 926/86 on 1.12.1986. The said petition came up for hearing before me on 4.12,1986. After looking into the entire material on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I was not inclined to admit the revision petition but the learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that in case sometime was granted to the tenants to vacate the premises the petition will not be pressed. On this submission I issued notice to the landlords. The matter again came up before me on 8 1.1987. The parties entered into a settlement. The statements of the parties were recorded. Petitioner No. 1 namely, Smt. Manmohan Kaur made the following statement : "I am petitioner No. 1 and tenant in the property in dispute. I admit the bona fide requirement of the respondents. I give an undertaking to this Court that I shall hand over vacant possession of The premises in dispute to the respondent-landlord on or before 30thday of June, 1988. I further undertake that I shall keep on paying the rent at the agreed rate on or before the 15th day of each succeeding month and I shall clear the arrears of rent within one month from today to Rajinder Pal, respondent No. 1. If I fail to clear the arrears within one month and commit any two defaults in payment of future rent the respondent will be entitled to execute the eviction order forthwith. I have the instructions to make similar statement on behalf of Mrs. Man Preet Kaur who is my daughter and is petitioner No. 3. An affidavit giving an undertaking to the same effect of petitioner No. 3 will be filed in Court within two weeks".

Shri Sarabjeet Singh, petitioner No. 2 in that revision petition also made a statement exactly on the same line as was made by Smt. Manmohan Kaur.The affidavit of Mrs. Man Preet Kaur was filed. Thus, the undertaking had been given by all the three petitioners in the revision petition to this Court tothe effect that the possession of the premises will be handed over to the landlords on or before the 30th day of June, 1988. Shri Rajinder Pal, that is, the landlord also made a statement whereby he accepted the statements of the petitioners and undertook not to execute the eviction order till 30/06/1988 provided the tenants pay the arrears of rent and keep on paying the future rent on or before the 15th day of each succeeding month. On the basis of the statements recorded I accepted the undertaking and disposed of THE petition in those terms.

(3) The possession was to be handed over on 30-6-1988. However,since the possession was not handed over the present petition for Contempt of Court was filed by the landlords on 19.7 1988. Meanwhile the Tenants have filed an application for being relieved of their undertakings on The ground that a fraud had been played on this Court inasmuch as the landlords had entered into an agreement to sell the property to a third person in1986 and had not disclosed that fact to this Court. It is not necessary To deal with that application of the tenants since the same pleas have been raised in this petition for Contempt of Court and by this order that application will also be disposed of.

(4) In this petition for Contempt of Court filed by the landlords it is alleged that in view of the aforesaid undertakings the possession of the premises was not banded over and as such the respondents had committed the Contempt of Court. It is further alleged that even the rent as contemplated was not paid. It is stated that the petitioners were requesting the respondents to vacate the premises but the respondents had no intention to do. so and suddenly on 1.7.128S they locked the premises and left the same without giving the address or their whereabouts. The petitioners on the same day received a telegram from Shri Sarabjit Singh, respondents No. 2 saying,"you have not turned up today to take possession of the premises which we had vacated." The averments are that the allegations in the telegram were apparently false inasmuch as the petitioners had contacted the respondents several times in the last week of June 1988 and asked them to vacate the premises and hand over possession but the respondents failed to comply with their undertakings and did not deliver the possession. However, after receiving the telegram petitioner No. 1 went io the disputed premises onI 7.198S and again on 2.7.198S but found the premises locked. The petitioner again went to the disputed premises on 3.7.1988 when respondent No 4,who is a niece of respondent No. 1 and lives in a nearby house came tothe premises and opened the locks. The petitioner was just in the process of taking over the possession of the premises when respondent No. 4, made a complaint on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to the police station Rajouri Garden that petitioner No. 1 was trespassing into the said premises. As a result the police came on the spot and got the premises locked again and handed over the keys to respondent No. 4. The petitioner has mentioned the Fir number and date as lodged by respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner the respondents had played a fraud on the petitioners and on this Court by manipulating the entire thing.

(5) Notice of the application was issued to the respondents The respondents appeared and filed a reply to the application. The case of the respondents in reply is that the respondents were always willing to pay the rent but the petitioner was not accepting and as such some rent was deposited in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller and some money orders were accepted by the petitioners. According to them no rent is due. As regards handling over of the possession, the case set up is that the respondents had vacated the premises on 30.6.1988 but the petitioners did not turn up to take possession and instead one Shri Subash Chand Batbia came to take Delivery of the possession on the plea that he had purchased the property and Shri Rajinder Pal and others had told him to take possession from the respondents On coming to know the respondents brought these facts to the notice of this Court and asked for the discharge from their undertakings. The respondents have placed on record certain documents including copy of the agreement to sell and the receipts allegedly executed by the petitioners in favor of the said Shri Subash Chand Bathla. However, these allegations of the respondents regarding the alleged agreement to sell and receipt of consideration have been denied by the petitioners Surprisingly neither the agreement to sell nor the receipts are registered. The entire transaction amounting to more than Rs. 2.50,000.00 was allegedly paid in cash and without being registered Further the receipt allegedly executed by the petitioners is attested by two witnesses and one of them is Captain Roddey, who is brother of respondent No. 1. The other witness, one ShriS.P Singh who according to the petitioners is son-in-law of respondent No. 1,which fact is denied by the respondents. Captain Roddey being brother of respondent No. 1 is admitted. The respondents have produced one more receipt for Rs. 25,000.00whicb was allegedly executed by said Shri SubashChand Batbia in favor of the respondents as having received the amount towards security in respect of premises No. F-20. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi from the respondents. According to the respondents there was an agreement between Shri Subash Chand Bathia and the respondents to the effect that the respondents will be entitled to retain particular portion of the property as tenants and they would band over the other portion to Shri Subash Chand Bathia. Admittedly there is no sale deed in favor of ShriSubash Chand Bathia. According to the respondents the execution of the sale deed was being postponed in order to evict the respondents.

(6) I have looked into all the documents very carefully. The signatures on various documents do not tally with each other and atleast with the admitted signatures of the petitioners. Further in my opinion the contention of the petitioners prima facie, seems to be correct that these documents have been forged and manipulated in order to continue in possession of the premises and in fact none of these documents were ever executed by the petitioners. Surprisingly the alleged purchaser, namely, Shri Subash ChandBathia has handed over copies of all the documents to the respondents which would prejudice his own right to get possession of the premises In case the documents has been executed and the sale deed was to be executed after the possession was delivered to the petitioners, obviously there was no occasion for Shri Subash Chand Bathlato handover copies of all the documents tothe respondents and he would have waited to get possession which would have been delivered to the petitioners in the ordinary course on or before 30/06/1988. The receipts for Rs. 2,50,000.00 and Rs. 15.0001- were executed on the same date, that is, on 12/07/1988 when the respondents had already filed an application in this Court for being discharged from theirundertakings. If such was the situation Shri Subash Chand Bhathia would neither have paid Rs. 2,50,000.00 nor he would have handed over the documents to the respondents. It is further surprising that when the petitioners had becomes entitled to take possession, they and Shri Subash Chand Bhathia would enter such transaction to defeat their right of getting possession and that also in connivance with the brother of respondent No. 1, who is the attesting witness of both the receipts.

(7) On careful consideration I am of the opinion that these documents have been forged and have been brought into existence only in order to playa fraud on this Court and to prejudice the lights of the petitioners to get possession of the premises.

(8) In any case assuming that the documents had been executed even then admittedly no sale deed has been executed and Shri Bathla does not allege any right in the property and cannot possibly induct tenants of get money from the tenants He may have to file a suit for specific performance and if he succeeds he may have the right to get possession of the property.Till such time that Shri Bathia gets possession the respondents have no right to retain the possession of the premises This fact by itself does not and cannot relieve the respondents of their undertakings given to this Court. The undertakings given by them are binding on them and they have violated thesame willfully. I therefore, bold that the respondents 1 and 2 are guilty Of Contempt of Court by willfull breach of the undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises in dispute on or before 30 6 1988. As far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, she is admittedly not residing in the premises and has never resisted the possession to the petitioners. Accordingly I direct that respondents 1 and 2, that is, the contemners to pay fine of Rs. 2QOO.00each. Even fine does not meet the ends of justice and I further direct that in the event of the contemners not vacating and handing over vacant possession of the premises in dispute and putting the petitioners in possession thereof on or before 30th day of April. 1989, the contemners will be detained in civil prison for two months for Contempt of Court. Ip the event of the contemnors having handed over the possession of the premises within the said period there will be no further punishment except the payment of fine as directed.

(9) I, further direct that in case the contemners do not hand over thepossession to the petitioners on or before 30th day of April, 1989 and also pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent up to that day, the Executing Court will take steps to render all assistance including the police help to deliver possession to the petitioners forthwith as also for recovery of the arrears of rent if any. The petition is disposed of accordingly.