M. K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The instant proceeding for contempt stems from a petition filed by Prakash Lal Sharma under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on September 9, 1985 seeking eviction of the respondent herein from one room and garage (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) on the ground floor of House No. 1572, Sector 18-D. Chandigarh. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed. Against such dismissal he filed a revision petition in the High Court but without success. Thereafter, with the leave of this Court, he filed an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1989 which was ultimately dismissed by this Court on October 5, 1994 with the following order:"Delay condoned. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, as agreed to by both the learned counsel, time to hand over vacant possession to Smt. Rita Markandey is granted till 31st March, 1995. This shall be subject to the usual undertaking to be filed by the appellant-tenant within four weeks from today."
(2.) On the respondents failure to handover vacant possession of the suit premises on or before March 31, 1995 to Smt. Rita Markandey (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), the daughter of Prakash Lal Sharma, who had died in the meantime, in terms of the above order she put in an application for execution of the eviction order before the Rent Controller, Chandingarh in or about the month of May, 1995. On that application a notice was issued to the respondent asking him to show cause why the eviction order should not be executed. In showing cause the respondent asserted that he was in occupation of three rooms, one garage, one store, one kitchen, one bathroom and a toilet on the ground floor of the house in question - and not only of the suit premises - and therefore the eviction sought for was impermissible. Other contentious issues of fact and law against the execution were also raised.
(3.) Before, however, the matter could be further pursued by the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed the petition, out of which the instant proceeding arises. In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner has averred, inter alia, as follows: "The contemnor was shown indulgence by this Court by giving him 6 months time, but on the contrary he has by his conduct flagrantly misused rather abused, the indulgence of this Court firstly by gaining 4 weeks time to file an undertaking and thereafter refusing to file the said undertaking and simultaneously contesting the execution application dated 29-5-1995 filed by the petitioner in return filing an objection petition on 17-7-1995. This conduct of the contemnor/tenant firstly gaining 4 weeks time from this Court for filing an undertaking and thereafter refusing to file an undertaking is palpable act and omission on the part of the Contemnor which amounts to wilful disobedience of the order dated 5th October, 1994 passed by this Court. ;