Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition arises out of first appeal filed by tenant which was disposed of on 21.05.2004 on the undertaking given by the tenant to hand -over the vacant possession of the suit premises in question to the landlord on or before 30.11.2006.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners Landlord, since the appellant tenant gave the undertaking before this Court to hand -over the vacant possession of the suit premises on or before 30.11.2006 but did not do so, she has to file this contempt petition in the Court on 07.12.2006, on which notices were issued on 11.12.2006 by this Court. Again on 04.01.2007, this Court issued notices to the contemnor No. 2 Mr. Sandeep Kukkad when it was brought to the notice of this Court by the contemnor respondent No. 1 Sudhir Kukkad that respondent No. 2 was in possession of the suit premises, who was though his brother and partner, and on account of certain dispute between the partners, he was not able to get the vacant possession of the shop in question and hand over the same to the Landlord by the stipulated date. This appeared to be a camouflage to this Court, and, therefore, on 11.01.2007, a bailable warrant was issued against the respondent contemnor No. 2 Sandeep Kukkad to be produced before this Court on 18.01.2007. On 18.01.2007, both the respondent -Contemnors were present in the Court and they filed the reply. In the meanwhile, the petitioner -Landlord got executed the decree through trial Court and obtained the vacant possession of the shop in question on 09.01.2007.
(3.) ARGUING the present contempt petition and pressing for conviction, imposition of fine or even punishment by way of imprisonment, Mr. RK. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners urged, that the respondents have flouted the solemn undertaking given before this Court and getting the appeal decided in terms of that undertaking way back on 21.05.2004, to which consent was given by the Landlord so that the peaceful vacant possession be handed over to her on or before the stipulated date i.e 30.11.2006, thereafter avoidance on the part of contemnors to give vacant peaceful possession of the shop in question to the Landlord was absolutely a wilful and gross contempt on their part and, therefore, this Court may take strong view of the matter and punish the contemnors accordingly. He relies upon the Judgment of this Court in, 2006(3) DNJ (Raj) 1463 (Lrs. of Padma Rani (Smt.) v. Chandra Prakash);, 1997(1) RLR 336 (Ram Rakh Chacha v. : 2006CriLJ2369 (Rama Narang v. Hamesh Narang and Anr).;