Behari Lal and another vs Puran Chand

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—Briefly the facts are that the Petitioners filed an ejectment application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Respondent from the house in dispute, on the ground that the Respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent and that the Petitioners required the house for personal necessity. The Respondent contested the petition, controverted the allegations of the Petitioners. He also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties The Rent Controller after recording evidence came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the Petitioners required the house bona fide for their use and occupation He, therefore, accepted the application. The Respondent went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the Rent Controller. At the time of hearing of the appeal the Petitioners, on the basis of an undertaking'' given by the Respondent to vacate the house within a period of one and a half years, granted him that much time to vacate it. Consequently the appeal of the Respondent was dismissed as withdrawn.

It is further averred by the Petitioners that the period of one and a half yeas expired on 17th May, 1983 but in spite of the undertaking the Respondent did not vacate the house and hand over its possession to the Petitioners. On 30th May, 1983, it is alleged, a suit was tiled by Smt Goma Devi, mother and Khushi Ram, brother of the Respondent for a declaration that they along with the Respondent were in occupation of the house in equal shares and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the order of the Appellate Authority was illegal, void and ineffective. Consequently they also sought relief of injunction. The suit was contested by the Petitioners in which they specifically pleaded that it was the Respondent who was tenant under them and he executed a rent note dated 5th August, 1970 in favour of the original owner Amar Nath from whom they had purchased the house. During the pendency of the suit the trial Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Petitioners to eject the Plaintiffs in that case in execution of the order passed by the Rent Controller. An appeal by the Petitioners against that order was accepted by the Appellate Court and the ad interim injunction was vacated. It is further stated that the Respondents, after giving an undertaking to the Court, flouted its orders and, therefore, they are guilty of the contempt of the Court. They have consequently prayed that an appropriate action be taken against them.

The Respondent contested the petition and inter alia pleaded that his mother Goma Devi and brother Khushi Ram were in occupation of the house and he (Respondent) was not in its occupation. He had vacated the same and was living in another rented premises He further stated that his mother and brother had filed a suit for declaration in the Court of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge who had also granted ad interim injunction order in their favour. He also controverted other allegations of the Petitioner.

The question that arises for determination is as to whether the Petitioner gave an undertaking before the Appellate Authority that he would vacate the house within a period of 1-1/2 years and he failed to do so. It is not disputed that an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller against the Respondent. He went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. At the time of hearing of the appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the statement of the Respondent (Appellant in that appeal) was recorded by the Court who stated that the Respondents (Petitioners in the present case) bad agreed to permit him to continue to occupy the premises for a period of 1-1/2 years from that day and consequently his appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter Behari Lal Respondent''s (now Petitioner) at well as his counsel''s statement was recorded they agreed to the grant of 1-1/2 years time and dismissal of the appeal. The Court thereafter passed the following order;

In view of the statement of Puran Chand Appellant and the counsel for the parties, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The Respondents have agreed to concede a period of 1-1/2 years to the Appellant for vacating the premises. Thus they shall not be entitled to sue out execution for the said period. The parties are loft to bear their own costs. Records be consigned.

From a reading of the statements of the parties and the order of the Court it is evident that the Petitioners granted 1-1/2 years time to the Respondent to vacate the house in view of the undertaking given by him that he would do so within that period The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act authorises the authorities under the Act to grant upto three months time to vacate a house at the time of passing an order of ejectment against a tenant Thus the appellate Authority had no power to grant 1-1/2 years time to the Respondents of its own accord. It clearly shows that 1-1/2 years time was given to the Respondent at the Petitioners'' instance.

Behari Lal Petitioner appeared as his own witness and deposed about the aforesaid facts He further staled that the compromise was effected because of the statement of the Respondent and he was allowed 1-1/2 years time to vacate the premises That time came to an end but he did not surrender its possession. He is still in possession of the house. His mother filed a suit against the Petitioners and obtained an injunction order against them from the trial Court. An appeal was filed against the order of the trial Court granting ad interim injunction and the appellate Court accepted it and vacated the stay order. From the above statement, it is evident that the Respondent in order to retain the possession got instituted the suit from his mother for injunction on the ground that she was in possession of the house as a tenant and was not liable to ejectment in an order passed against the Respondent Though the trial Court granted an ad interim injunction in the suit, but on appeal it was vacated. It appears that the Respondent wants to retain the possession of the house in spite of giving an undertaking, by hook or by crook.

A plea has also been taken in the reply to the present petition that his brother and mother were in possession of the property as tenants and that he had left the house. That plea however, cannot be accepted. In the written statement filed by the Respondents to the application for ejectment u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act no plea was taken by him that his mother and brother were tenants in the house. The Rent Controller after going into the evidence came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Now he cannot be allowed to raise this plea. It appears that the Respondent in order to retain possession of the house, got a suit filed from his brother and mother. It is also relevant to mention that their application for ad interim injunction has been dismissed by this Court.

The Respondent also produced some evidence to show that he had left the house Shri Raj Kumar Chawla, Revenue Superin-tendent Cantonment Board, R W.1, produced copies of the assessment register relating to house No. 119. In the copy of the assessment register relating to the year 1982-83, Sohan Lal, Sham Lal and Dar-ahan Lal have been shown to be in possession of the property as tenants. It is not the case of the Respondent that the said persons were in possession as tenants. The witness is unable to say when the �aid entries were made. He had also no personal knowledge regarding the correctness of the said entries Therefore, on the basis of his statement, it cannot be said that the Respondent has left the possession of the house. Ravender Sen R W. 3 has stated that he was owner of house No. 35 Bazar No. 7, Ferozepur Cantt. in which he inducted the Respondent as a tenant before 2-1/2 years ago He denied the allegation that Puran Chand was residing in House No 119. He also proved receipts Exhibits RW3/1 to RW3/8 in token of having received the rent from him. No reliance can be placed on these receipts as these can be prepared at any time No rent note has been produced by the witness in order to prove the tenancy. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. Om Parkash R W. 4 deposed that at present Pritam Dass and his elder brother were residing in the house in dispute along with their mother. Puran Chand was residing in Bazar No 7 Feroze-pur Cantt. He further stated that he was a mediater between the Petitioners and the Respondent He admitted in cross examination that Puran Chand was his neighbour He futher stated that the rent note was executed by Puran Chand in favour of Ravinder Sen R.W. at the time of inception of tenancy in his house As already said above, the rent note has not been produced. Behari Lal Petitioner appeared in the witness box. No question was put to him that the witness mediated between the parties. In the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that he mediated. Further he stated that he did not know whether Puran Chand delivered possession of the house to the Petitioners. In case it may be accepted that the Respondent vacated the house, it was his duty to handover its possession to the Petitioners His statement too does not inspire confidence. There is no difficulty for a litigant to procure such a witness. Baldev Raj kaushal R.W 5 is the special attorney of the Respondent. He did not depose about any of the facts but produced some documents. It may be highlighted that the Respondent did not dare to enter the witness box in support of his pleas. After taking into consideration all the abovesaid circumstances, it cannot be held that the Respondent has left the possession of the house in dispute.

It is well settled that if an undertaking is given by a tenant to vacate the house within a particular period and acting on that undertaking the landlord grants him time, the tenant is guilty of contempt of Court in case he backs out from his undertaking. Reference in this regard may be made to Chhaganbhai Norsinbhai v. Soni Chanabhal(sic) Gordhanbhai A. I. R. 1906 S. C 1909. In that case, the Appellant in a previous-revision had given an undertaking before the High Court to hand over possession of certain premises but he failed to deliver possession in pursuance of that undertaking. It was observed that the case was a case of deliberate violation of an undertaking to the Court and its effect was the same as that of a breach of an injunction. It was further observed that therefore, it amounted to contempt of Court. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Gita Ram Kalsy, Advocate, Ludhiana v. Bhagwan Dass (1983) 85 P. L. R. 310. The facts of that case are similar to the present case. In that case, the landlord gave a period of 2 years to the tenant to vacate the premises at the intervention of the Court. The tenant instead of delivering the possession to the landlord handed over the same to some members of his family. It was held by the learned Judge that the tenant was guilty of contempt of the Court. The counsel for the Respondent referred to Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury Vs. Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho, and Sukumar Mitra Vs. Tarasankar Ghosh, . In the former case, it was held that on the construction of the compromise it could not be said that the tenant made a promise to the Court. In Sukhmar Mitra''s case (supra) it was agreed by the Defendant that he would vacate the premises within a particular time and in case he failed to do so, the Plaintiff could execute the decree of ejectment in accordance with law From the above observation, it is evident that both the case are distinguishable. Therefore, the counsel cannot derive any benefit from the observations therein.

After taking into consideration all the aforsaid facts I am of the view that the Respondent gave an undertaking to vacate the house and he wilfully backed out from the undertaking. Therefore, he is guilty of contempt of the Court it has been seen that the litigants back out from the undertakings given by them in Courts fabricating false stories Present is a case of that type Consequently, in my view, the Respondent deserves a deterrent punishment.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the petition and sentence the Respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in case he fails to pay the fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The Petitioners be paid Rs. 500/- if the fine is realised from the Respondent.

ORDER

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent requests for one month''s time to enable him to file an appeal. The Petitioner shall furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar giving an undertaking that if he is unable to obtain a stay order in the appeal, he shall surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur on 15th October, 1984.