R. S. Dhavan, J - - (1.) THESE proceedings continue today having been directed to be placed as unlisted as the matter was fixed for yesterday. The order of 15-11-1990 shall form part of this judgment.
(2.) IN the order of 15 November 1990 this court had come to the conclusion that the two opposite parties have commitied contempt with impunity, regardless of the undertakINg they gave to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to render the suit premises vacant. The opposite parties were resistINg the execution at the courts below IN Allahabad by leeal engINeerINg with the suit premises still contINuINg to be occupied. The objection, IN effect, before the execution court was the same as before this court IN defence The one who gave the undertakINg says he was not the allottee-tenant The allottee-tenants says, In effect, that he never gave the undertakINg ResistINg the execution proceedINgs and not permittINg the undertakINg given to take effect is contempt for the sanctity of the undertakINg given to a court. The opposite parties were contemptuous of the execution proceedINgs and laughed at it. The executINg court was made to look silly for puttINg IN process a decree for eviction, certified by a writ of certiorary by the High Court and a matter not INterfered INto by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Beyond this, two writ petitions were filed by Arun Kumar Bhasin resisting execution. Anil Kumar Bhasin's undertaking at the Bar of the Supreme Court was on 4-1-1989. In both the records of the writ petitions the text of the undertaking eludes the record. As this court has already observed that the two opposite parties are brothers, multiplicity of proceedings went even to the extent that the landlord had to file a writ petition before this court to protect himself and the decree of eviction being frustrated in the gamble which risks ligiation by these who thwart a legitimate process of the court. This court sets on record today that but for the indulgence which was sought by learned connsel on 15 November 1990 this court would have awarded maximum punishment as prescribed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 After the defence has been taken by the opposite parties and the proceedings were closely watched, the contemnors became conscious of what the charges were that stood against them
(3.) A violation of an undertaking given to a court and ridiculating the execution proceedings at the courts below is artifice and trickery. The case under section 21 of U. P. Urban Building (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 became terminal The decree of eviction was absolute. Skulduggery to resist or dodge eviction, is contempt of execution proceedings, which the High Court can well consider. There is contempt of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court, in addition. A landlord in a far away State of the nation, cannot run to New Delhi to fight another round of contempt proceedings. He will rush to his High Court, as the execution process was being made a joke of by the tenant. There ought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking on an order is with impunity and with total consciousness.;