- (1.) The dispute relates to the tenancy of an accommodation in the first floor of Property No. 125 A, Purva Suthi Ganj Begum Bridge Road, meerut City. Complainants are the owners of the premises. The contempt complained of is the alleged wilful disobedience and breach of an undertaking given to the court by the contemner, Kanta Gupta, pursuant to a consent order made on 17/12/1987. The said undertaking is in the following terms: "(1 That I will continue in possession of the premises in dispute for a period of two years from 17/12/1987 and will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlords punctually on the expiry of the said period of two years. (2 That I will pay to the said respondent all arrears of rent within two months from 17/12/1987. (3) That I will pay to the respondents further compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 2,500. 00 per month with effect from 1/01/1988, month by month before the 7th of the month for which the rent is payable. (4 That I will not induct any other person in the suit premises. "
(2.) On 1/12/1989 complainant issued a notice calling upon the contemner to vacate and to yield up vacant possession on the expiry of 16/12/1989. Instead of agreeing to comply with that undertaking the contemner sent a reply referring to certain antecedent litigation between the parties and set up a case that Bhagwandas, her husband, was actually in possession pursuant to those earlier transactions and asserted her non-liability in law and inability in fact to surrender vacant possession. Thereupon the present contempt proceedings were initiated.
(3.) The proceedings in the appeal before this court which culminated in the undertaking arose out of the order dated 21/05/1985 made by the Rent Controller, Meerut, allotting the said accommodation in favour of the contemner under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. On 23/05/1985 the contemner acknowledged in writing before the Rent Controller that she had obtained actual possession of the allotted premises. The complainants challenged the allotment before the revisional authority under the statute which by its order dated 23/03/1987 set aside the allotment. The order of the revisional authority was challenged by the contemner in W. P. No. 6762 of 1987 before the High court of Allahabad, The High court dismissed that writ petition. Against that dismissal the contemner preferred by special leave, C. A. No. 2590 of 1987 which, as stated earlier, culminated in the consent order dated 17/12/1987 followed by the aforesaid undertaking by the contemner.;