COCP No.1061 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1061 of 2008
Date of decision: 30.7.2009
Dharam Dev Verma ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sukhdev Kumar ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Syan, Advocate for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.13554-CII of 2008
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
COCP No.1061 of 2008
As per averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed an
ejectment application against the respondent for his eviction from the
shop owned by him. The said application was accepted by the Rent
Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib vide his order dated 18.3.1986. Appeal
against the aforesaid eviction order was dismissed by the Appellate
Authority on 28.11.1986. Civil Revision No. 659 of 1987 was disposed of
by this Court on 23.3.2005. The order reads as under;
“Mr. J.S. Chaudhary, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the tenant-petitioner states at the
outset that both the authorities below have
concurrently held that the shop in question had
been let out for running the business and that the
COCP No.1061 of 2008 2same was being used as a godown. The learned
senior counsel, in view of the aforesaid finding
very fairly states that the present Revision Petition
may be dismissed as not pressed but a
reasonable time be given to the tenant-petitioner
to make alternative arrangement.
Mr. J.P.S. Chadha, learned counsel appearing for
the landlord, accepts the offer of the tenant-
petitioner and has very fairly stated that the
landlords would have no objection if one year
time is granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate
the premises.
In view of the agreement of the parties as
aforesaid, the present Revision Petition is
dismissed as not pressed. However, the tenant-
petitioner shall hand over the possession of the
tenanted premises on or before May 31, 2006.
The tenant-petitioner shall also file an undertaking
before the learned Rent Controller within a period
of one month from today to the effect that he will
hand over the possession of the demised
premises to the landlord-respondents within the
aforesaid period i.e upto May 31, 2006. The
tenant-petitioner shall also deposit all the arrears
of rent. If any, and the future rent upto May 31,
2006 before the learned Rent Controller within the
aforesaid period of one month.
The present petition is disposed of accordingly.”
COCP No.1061 of 2008 3
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has failed to
hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to him on or before 31st
May, 2006 as per aforesaid order and thus, has committed the contempt as
defined under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court , the
respondent is present in person and is duly represented by his counsel.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of this contempt petition.
Undisputedly, the respondent had not filed any undertaking
before the Rent Controller to the effect that he will hand over the vacant
possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before
31.5.2006. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had already filed
execution of the aforesaid eviction order against the respondent.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an
execution application for execution of the eviction order against the
respondent, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition.
Even otherwise, there is no undertaking given by the respondent as per the
order dated 23.3.2005 which was breached by the respondent.
No merit. Dismissed.
Rule discharged.
July 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE