- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. The present petition has been filed with the allegations that the Opp. parties have violated the order dated 23-1-2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 5269 of 1998. According to the applicant, Opp. parties have not vacated the premises in dispute within the period of six months which was granted by this Court which allowing the Writ Petition of Landlord and directing the ejectment of tenant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a Suit No. 98 of 1988 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment from the disputed shop No. 86 situated in Mohalla Thakuryana Pulia No. 9, Jhansi. THE suit was dismissed (sic allowed) by the Judge Small Causes Court on the findings that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent. THE further finding was that the tenant had sub-let the accommodation in question. THE trial Court has also recorded a finding that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid. Aggrieved by the said order, tenant Chandra Kumar filed Revision No. 56 of 1994. THE said Revision was allowed on the ground that the letting took place without any allotment and therefore, tenancy in question being void suit for ejectment was not maintainable. Against the said revisional order aforesaid, a Writ Petition No. 5269 of 1998 was filed. THE writ petition was allowed and the order of revisional Court was quashed and the order of trial Court was restored. This Court has further observed as follows: "the contesting respondent is granted six months time to vacate the disputed shop provided he deposits the entire decreetal amount up to date and also furnishes an undertaking before the trial Court that he will hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the petitioner on or before the expiry of the period of six months from today. THE undertaking may be furnished within a period of one month from today. " The case of the applicant is that despite of the aforesaid order of this Court, granting six months time to vacate the disputed shop, the shop in dispute has not vacated and therefore, the Opp. parties have committed contempt. Sri S. C. Srivastava, Advocate in support of his contention stated that none eviction of premises in question in pursuance of the order dated 23-1- 2003, amounts to contempt of order of this Court. He relied upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar v. Kalu Ram and others, reported in A. I. R. 1989 SC page 2285. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant. I am of the view that on the facts of the present case, no case of contempt is made out. The decision of Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar v. Kalu Ram and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
(3.) IN para-6 of the Contempt Petition, it has been stated that "chandra Kumar Opp. Party No. 1 who was to give an undertaking when neither furnished any undertaking and not deposited the decreetal amount as per the judgment dated 23-1-2003 of this Court, applicant filed an Execution No. 5 of 2003 on 1-4- 2003 for execution of decree. " In Contempt Application as well as affidavit filed in support of the application, it is no where stated that the Court had granted six months time to vacate the disputed shop on the request and undertaking of the Opp. parties.;