JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
(1) Vide my order dt.l2.12.95, I have sentenced contemnors 1 to 3 to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 , failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. I have been told that fine has been paid by the contemnors. On that date Ms.Anju Lal appeared for respondent no.6 and counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply to the application filed by respondent no.6, which is an application u/S 151 read with Order Vii, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(2) MR.G.N. Aggarwal, now appearing for respondent no.6 has contended that no notice of contempt was issued to respondent no.6 as per order of this Court dt.l8.9.92 and therefore, respondent no.6 is not a party in the contempt proceedings. He has also contended that no undertaking of any nature whatsoever, was given by respondent no.6 regarding tenanted premises. In support of his arguments, Mr.Aggarwal has relied up to contend that respondent no.6 is not bound by the undertaking, if any, given by her husband or sons. Mr. Aggarwal has further contended that as a matter of fact on 23.7.92, Ahmed Sayeed, landlord of the property in question entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondent no.6 for a total consideration of Rs.l,80,000.00 , out of which Rs.20,000.00 was paid by the respondent no.6 to Ahmed Sayeed as earnest money in cash. He has further contended that on the same day itself, Ahmed Sayeed also interred into an agreement with respondent no.6 under which he agreed that the initial decree obtained by Ahmed Sayeed against Mohd. Hanif, husband of respondent no.6 stands satisfied.
(3) On the other hand Mr.Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Contempt petition has contended that inspite of the undertaking given by Mohd. Hanif and his three sons to vacate the premises on or before 31st July, 1992, the tenanted premises are still occupied by respondent no.6, who is the legal heir of deceased Mohd. Hanif being his widow, Mohd. Hanif was the revision in Cr 693/90. He has further contended that Mohd. Hanif died on 31.7.92 and alleged agreements dt-23.7.92 are fabricated documents as will be borne out from the fact that matter was listed in Court in Civil Revision on 25.3.92 and the same was adjourned to 24.8.92. None appeared for the petitioner on that date and counsel for the respondent made a statement that the possession of premises has not been handed over by the petitioners as per undertaking given by them. Again on 19.11.92 the Court renotified the matter. On 26.3.93 the Court recorded that the petitioner was to hand-over the possession by 31st July, 1992 in accordance with the undertaking. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the possession so far has not been handed over.
(4) On 16.9.93 none appeared for the tenant. The Court issued notice to the legal heirs of the tenant, who were still in possession of the premises despite the undertaking given by the tenant and the Court directed them to appear in Court. The Court issued notice to the legal heirs for appearance, returnable on 14.10.93. Keeping in view that nobody was appearing for the tenants after 25.3.92 and more than one and a half year has passed, Court further directed service to be effected by affixation as well as by publication in the newspapers. Thereafter, the matter was listed and as I had observed, the respondents 1 to 3 were found guilty vide my detailed order dt.l2.12.95.
(5) This case has chequered history. On 18.7.90 eviction order was passed against Mohd. Hanif. Aggrieved by the said eviction order, said Mohd. Hanif preferred a Civil Revision No.693/90 in this Court. As that order is important, the same is reproduced hereinbelow :- “THE petitioner prays for further, time to vacate the premises. Considering that the petitioner is seriously ill and is suffering from paralysis and he is not in a position to come to Court to give an undertaking to the Court, the petitioner is directed to file the affidavit giving an undertaking to vacate the premises within two years from today and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 31st July, 1992. Considering all the aspects of the matter, in my view, two years’ time would be just and reasonable. The petitioner is living with his five sons. It is agreed that the sons of the petitioner will also give an undertaking to the Court on the same lines. The petitioner of course will have to pay all the arrears of rent and give a further undertaking that they will not part with possession or induct any third person as tenant in the premises in question during the period of two years.”
(6) Vide my order passed on 12.12.95 in Ccp 236/92, I held that the respondents could not have continued in possession of the suit property had it not been an order passed by the Court in Civil Revision and the time which was granted for two years in lieu of the undertaking given by the respondent to the Court that they will vacate the premises by 31st July, 1992.
(7) I have further ordered in the said order against which no appeal has been preferred, that order has become final that “in view of the order on record of Civil Revision, it would be manifestly clear that the time to vacate the premises was extended on account of undertaking which was so understood by the petitioner and his sons. The Court has recorded than that it was not inclined to admit the revision petition but for the undertaking given by the petitioner.” I further held that the order enabling the respondent to stay in the premises till 31st July, 1992 was on the basis of the undertaking which was given by deceased Mohd. Hanif and it was so understood by him and his family members including respondents 1 to 3.
(8) That leaves me to the question agitated before me by Mr.G.N. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 as to whether respondent no.6 is bound by the undertaking or not? The fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.6 is inherent. Respondent No.6 is the widow of Mohd. Hanif. Respondent no.6 stepped into the shoes of deceased Mohd. Hanif. She has no independent status in the present proceedings except as a legal heir of deceased Mohd. Hanif. Deceased, Mohd. Hanif and his three sons had given undertaking to this Court on the basis of which two years’ time was granted to vacate the premises on or before 31st July, 1992. Respondent no.6 cannot now agitate and set up in these proceedings the two agreements dt.23.7.92, inter alia, alleging the sale of property by Ahmed Sayeed to respondent no.6 and another recording satisfaction of eviction decree. Mr.Garg has contended that these agreements are fabricated and they are simply an afterthought to retain the ‘possession of the premises in question even after the undertaking given by the husband of respondent no.6. I would not like to comment on these agreements because any expression of opinion would result adversely on the merit of the case of either party as on the basis of these agreements respondent no.6 has filed some suit in the trial court.
(9) But should the Court leave this matter after commenting upon the conduct of the respondents and deprive the party who had legitimate expectation but for order passed by this Court extending time to deliver the possession on or before 31st July, 1992. In somewhat similar circumstances Apex Court had occassion to deal with this kind of situation. The difference is that there the wife gave an undertaking to the Court and subsequent proceeding was filed by the husband taking somewhat similar plea that the respondent is not bound by the undertaking given by the wife. Supreme Court dealt with this question in Smt. Kanta Vs. VIIIth Addl. Magistrate, Rent Controller (Report 1990 Vol.II page 539 para 6 & 8). The stand taken by the respondent no.6 firstly was that she never knew about the pendency of proceedings or about any undertaking given by or on behalf of Mohd. Hanif and her three sons, does not inspire much confidence. Even assuming that respondent no.6 was not aware of the undertaking which was given by Mohd. Hanif and her three sons, whether she is not bound by that undertaking being the legal heir of Mohd. Hanif? The answer is that she is bound by the undertaking, nowhere any plea has been raised that respondent no.6 was not living with deceased Mohd. Hanif, except the plea that she is a purdanashin lady. Respondent no.6 as the legal heir of deceased Mohd. Hanif steps into the shoes of Mohd. Hanif. She is bound by the undertaking, which was an undertaking as held by this Court’s order dt.12.12.95. From the sequence of events as detailed in the said order and the conduct of respondents in not appearing in this Court on various dates, which I had indicated above, would show that respondent no.6 wanted to over-reach the undertaking given to this Court by deceased Mohd. Hanif and her three sons. Following the ratio of Smt. Kanta, I hold that respondent no.6 is in contempt. However, keeping in view her old age, I take a lenient view and do not award punishment. In the circumstance, I direct respondent no.6 to deliver physical possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner on or before 31st August, 1996. If the same is not delivered, the petitioner is at liberty to move this Court for appropriate police aid to evict the respondent no.6 from the premises in question.
(10) Deliberately I have not commented upon the agreements, which are the basis of the proceedings pending before the Lower Courts. However, a direction is also is- sued to the Courts below to dispose of those cases within a period of six months. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.
(11) In the event of any finding in favour of respondent no.6 in the suit filed for specific performance, Mr.Garg undertakes that possession of suit premises in question will be restituted to respondent no.6.