Khushi Ram vs V.P. Parkash Chopra
1992 Latest Caselaw 351 Del

JUDGMENT

C.M. Nayar, J.

(1) The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord against the respondent Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra for his failure to deliver the possession of the impugned premises No. 17-A/20. WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The notice in the petition was issued on 6/02/1992, and the matter has been adjourned on different occasions.

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/Contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra was a tenant in the impugned premises. The order of eviction was passed against him by the Court of Additional RentController, Delhi in suit No. E-487/8 3/04/1987. The respondent felt aggrieved by this order and 'filed Civil RevisionNo.498ofl987in thisCourt. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 13/11/1990, when Sunanda Bhandare, J. after hearing Counsel for the petitioner/landlord passed a detailed order upholding the findings of the Additional Rent Controller. The Revision, as a consequence, was dismissed on 13/11/1990. Thereafter, the respondent filed two applications being C.M. No. 3013 and 3014/90 in this Court praying that the revision petition may be restored to its original number and thus be decided on merits. Notice was issued in these applications and a detailed order was passed by learned Single Judge on 17/05/1991. The earlier order of eviction was upheld as no ground was made for review of the judgment passed on 13/11/1990.The respondent was, however, given time to vacate the premises on or before' 28/01/1992. The said undertaking was accepted by the Court and the respondent was granted time accordingly. It may be relevant to reproduce this undertaking, which reads as follows : "STATEMENT of Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra, petitioner on Sa :I am the petitioner in the above case. I undertake to this Court that I will vacate the premises in question and handover vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent on or before 28/01/1992. I will continue to pay at the agreed rate by the 15th of each month as compensation for use and occupation of the premises. I further undertake that I will not sub let or part with possession of the premises to any other third party while the same are in my occupation and will also not damage the premises.My undertaking may be accepted."

(3) The respondent, however, was not able to hand over the possession of the impugned premises which necessitated the filing of the present contemptpetition. The respondent took the stand in his reply that he has vacated the premises) which was in his possession and his brother Shri Nand Kishore Chopra was withholding the delivery of possession in respect of two rooms,kitchen, bath room and W.C. The notice of contempt was accordingly issued to the brother of the respondent Shri Nand Kishore Chopra for contempt and he has put in appearance through the Counsel and has filed his reply.

(4) Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Shri Maheshwar Dayal has submitted that the responsibility of vacation of the premises squarely laid with the respondent Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra in view of his undertaking given to this Court on 27/05/1991, where he alsounder took that he will not sublet or part with possession of the premises to any of the third party, while the same are in his occupation and will also not damage the premises. It has also been brought to my notice that the tenancy of the impugned premises was in the name of the respondent/contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra, with effect from 1/06/1963, and a photostat copy of the Rent Note is filed by the petitioner before this Court.

(5) Shri L.R. Gupta, who has appeared for the respondent/Contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra has stated before me that his client is willing and has in fact, honoured the undertaking given to this Court by vacating part of the premises which was in his possession and he has, therefore, committed no disobedience to the order of the Court or has violated the undertaking. He has further stated that in case, this Court has come to the conclusion that there is any disobedience, non compliance or non fulfillment of the undertaking, therespondent/contemner tenders his unqualified and unconditional apology for non delivery of remaining portion of the premises and prays that warrants of possession with police aid be issued and possession of the remaining portion of the premises be taken over and delivered to the petitioner and the respondent be pardoned.

(6) The contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra has also-filed his reply and reiterated that he has not given any undertaking nor has he violated any undertaking or violated any of his commitment, as such, the petition under reply be dismissed, Shri J.C. Mahindroo, learned Counsel has further argued that the tenancy in favor of his client Shri Nand Kishore Chopra is independent and he is a tenant in his own right. He has contended that the tenancy was in the name of the late father of Shri Nand Kishore Chopra and, therefore, the same is heritable and he is a tenant in his own right. He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mst. Surayya Begum v. Mohd.Usman and Others, 44 (1991) Delhi Law Times 293 and Textile Association v.Balmohan G. Karup, 1991 R.L.R. (SC) 305, wherein it has been held that one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant can always pursue his remedy, if he is not made a party to the eviction proceedings.

(7) The contention of Shri Nand Kishore Chopra that he is a tenant in his own right is totally misconceived and has no basis, either in facts or inlaw. In the connected proceedings between the same parties the ContemnerShri Nand Kishore Chopra had filed the written statement and taken the plea in the Court of Shri Dinesh Dayal A.R.C. that he was neither a sub tenantn or the premises were sublet to him. The following paragraph may bere produced in this regard : "AS prior clarified respondent No. 2 herein only lives along with. his brother respondent No. 1 herein, who alone retains legal possession of suit premises as respondent used to live along with their eldest brother Shri S.P. Chopra, previous tenant of the instant suitpremises. Thus, it is specifically denied that respondent No. 2herein is occupying the suit premises as unauthorised occupant subtenant/assignees of respondent No. 1. It is reiterated that respondent No. 2 neither is in possession of any part of the tenancy premises as its legal possession is retained by respondent No. 1,whose respected mother Smt. Laxmi Devi wife of late Shri Des Raj is as well living along with respondent No. 1 in the portion untenablyearmarked as subletted."

(8) The respondent No. 2- at that time was none other than the present Contemner, Shri Nand Kishore Chopra. The legal possession of the entire premises was admitted in favor . of Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra. Thecase, which is now sought to be set up by the contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra, only after the expiry of that period granted by this Court on a specific undertaking by the respondent contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra, is an after thought. The Undertaking may not have been filed specifically by Shri Nand Kishore but he never claimed himself to be residing in the impugnedpremises in his own right. He also took no steps at any time to asser his right and was fully aware of the proceedings pending before this Court, in which a specific undertaking was filed by his brother Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra.Reference may be made to the following paragraph of the reply filed in this contempt petition: "11.That Shri Nand Kishore was coming to the Court on the hearing in the above case, and when this respondent gave anundertaking, it was on his assurance that he would vacate the portion of the premises in his occupation for his residence. Believing the said representation and assurances of his younger brother the respondent gave the undertaking to this Hon'ble Court that he would vacate the premises on or before 28.1.1992. The respondentd id not think even for a moment that Shri Nand Kishore, his younger brother would not honour his assurance and comply with The orders of this Hon'ble Court and would see that the undertaking given by this respondent is complied with by vacating the portion of the premises in his possession."

Therefore,the above would indicate that the Contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra was fully aware of the proceedings pending in this Court and of The order of eviction made therein.

(9) The matter has been adjourned on different dates in the hope that the contemners shall purge the contempt and show their bona fide by vacating the impugned premises but unfortunately this course has not been adopted bythem. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Contemner Shri NandKishore Chopra, on instructions, has vehemently argued that he has not given the undertaking to this Court and is continuing to stay in the impugned premises as a matter of right. This argument is totally misconceived and has been raised as an after thought and with a malafide intent to deprive the petitioner landlord of the possession of the premises on the basis of the undertaking given by his brother Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra. Learned Counsel Mr. J.C.Mahindroo has further informed me that the Contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra has now filed the suit, as well as, the objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, before the Trial Court in respect of the portion,which is alleged to be in possession of his client. The said objections have been filed, after issuance of notice of contempt and during the pendency of the present proceedings. This is obviously an after thought and the contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra was fully aware of the proceedings, in which an undertaking was filed before this Court.

(10) The only course, which is left open to this Court is to take serious view of the matter, in view of the undertaking filed by the- respondent Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra in this Court and the said undertaking not beinghonoured. The opportunity was provided to his brother Shri Nand Kishore Chopra, who also failed to vacate the premises in his possession particularly in view of the fact that he never, at any stage, claimed independent title to the premises. The tenancy was composite and it has always been held to be so.Therefore, there was no question of his having any independent title to any part of the premises. In Mrs. Pramila v. Capt. R.D. Khosla , it was held by this Court that when the undertaking to vacate the premises before a certain date was given in the High Court, but the said undertaking was not honoured, the Contemner was held guilty of contempt and was punished for six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000.00.

(11) In Brij Bhushan Jaidku v. Sneh Verman, 1991 R.L.R. (Note) 60,the learned Single Judge of this Court again held that if the tenant violated the undertaking to vacate the premises, then the High Court may direct immediate delivery of possession by breaking open lock by police aid.

(12) The respondent-contenner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra was also duty bound to have the premises vacated, although it may be said that his conduct in trying to convince his brother to honour the undertaking given by him for the impugned premises may be a mitigating factor in the award of punishment for violation of the undertaking filed before this Court, particularly in view of the fact that he has already handed over possession of the part of the premises to the petitioner, as well as, has rendered unqualified and unconditional apology to this Court. The other Contemner Shri Nand Kishore Chopra has persisted in asserting his independent right to retain the other part of the premises.

(13) In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold the Contemners guilty of willful disobedience of the order of this Court and, assuch, liable for punishment in the present proceedings. The Contemners are directed to hand over possession of the premises No. 17-A/20, W.E.A. KarolBagh, New Delhi, to the petitioner on or before 28/05/1992. In case, the possession is not delivered to the petitioner in the ordinary way during thisperiod, the petitioner shall be provided the police aid for vacation of the impugned premises. The Contemners are further directed to appear in this,Court on 29/05/1992, to report compliance and receive punishment.