JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) The petitioner let out premises No. D-17, defense Colony, New Delhi to the respondent through their Managing Partner Mrs. Kamini Sodhani vide registered lease deed dated 27,9.1992 for a period of two years commencing from 1st October, 1972 for residential purpsoe. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the petitioner Filed an, eviction petition under Section 14(l),(a), (c),(d),(e),(h),(j)of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the respondents. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the parties arrived at a compromise and a compromise application was filed before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 4.1.1978. The Additional Rent Controller on 6.1.1978 disposed of the eviction petition in terms of the compromise. The respondents failed to hand over the vacant possession and also did not pay the amount agreed by them towards the damages for the use and occupation of the premises even after the period agreed to by the petitioner had expired, in terms of the order dated 6.1.1978. Therefore, the petitioner Filed execution petition No. 4/82 and also Filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,000.00 for arrears of compensation and damages. During the pendency of the execution petition the petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the procedure adopted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Execution Petition No.4 of 1982. This petition was registered as CM(M) 189/86.
(2) During the pendency of CM(M) the petitioner agreed not to execute the decree till 31st December, 1988 provided the respondents were willing to give an undertaking to the Court to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the petitioner on or before 31.12.1988 as also the arrears of rent. Consequently, the respondents filed the undertakings in the form of affidavits of Mrs. Kamini Sodhani wife of Mr. Arun K. Sodhani and Mr. Arun Sodhani and CM(M) was disposed of on 19th November, 1986 by Sunanda Bhandare, J. accepting the undertakings given by Mrs. Kamini Sodhani and Mr. Arun K. Sodhani and directing the respondents to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner or their legal heirs mentioned in the affidavit on or before 31.12.1988 and to make the payment of damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute as undertaken in the affidavits. The objections filed in Execution Petition 4/82 by the respondents also stood dismissed. “(b) That I will hand over vacant physical possession of the entire premises bearing Municipal No. D-17, defense Colony, New Delhi comprising of 3 bed rooms, 2 bath rooms, drawing and dining room, one kitchen, one store on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms, one bathroom, one kitchen and one store on the First floor with one garage and servant quarter, to the petitioner/D-H., or his legal heirs namely Smt. Gargi Khanna wife of Maj. B.L. Khanna and Shri Rajiv Khanna son of Maj. B.L. Khanna, on or before 31.12.1988. along with complete fixtures and fittings as per the list which was signed by the parties at the time of letting out the premises subject to normal wear and tear.”
(3) It appears that the possession was not delivered by the respondents to the petitioner as per the terms of the undertakings and, therefore, the present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners-landlords. In this contempt petition it has been prayed that warrants of possession for premises D-17, defense Colony, New Delhi may be issued forthwith with a direction to the S.H.O. Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi to get the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners after breaking open the lock and also to prepare the inventory of the fittings and fixtures according to the list forming part of the registered Lease agreement, duly signed by the parties, and also for comparing the super-structure with the plan, Ext.A-2 or in the alternative a local commissioner be appointed with a direction to go to the premises and after breaking open the locks compare the articles as per the list of fittings and fixtures forming part of the registered lease agreement and to report as to whether the super-structure there is according to the plan Ext. A-2 and that as to how much damage has been caused to the premises and also with regard to the missing, broken and damages articles. Smt. Pawan Kapur, General Attorney of the petitioner, in her affidavit dated 13.1.1989 has Stated that “the respondents did not vacate the premises on the date given to this Hon’ble Court, but on filing of the contempt petition bearing No. 1 of 1989 by the petitioner against the respondents, the respondents through its Managing Partner Mrs. Kamani Sodhani handed over the possession of the premises in dispute in the most damaged condition.” Chaudhary, J. vide order dated 9.11.1990, in order to resolve the controversy between the parties as to the extent of damage which is alleged to have been caused by the respondents to the premises at the time of vacation of the premises, appointed Shri Suresh Goel, Architect, R/o W-83, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi as an independent Architect to inspect the premises and examine, whether the building and the fixtures and fittings have suffered any damage or not and if so to what extent? He was also directed to find out whether the damage has been caused by ordinary wear and tear due to use of the premises or by willful additions and alterations as also to assess the quantum regarding the damage caused to the premises and the fixtures and fittings and what amount would be required to rectify the damage, if any. The Architect has filed his report dated 26.2.1991. As per the report according to the site conditions and after hearing the observations of both the parties, the Architect was of the view that most of the damage to walls, ceiling, doors, windows etc. has been caused by additions/alterations beyond normal wear and tear in use of the premises for more than nineteen years. He has prepared the estimated cost in two heads:- Annexure-I: Item. requiring repairs/redone due to willful additions/alterations based on cost of materials and labour. Rs.71500.00 Annexure-II: Depreciated value of fans fixtures damaged/missing beyond normal wear and tear and for sanitary fixtures. Rs.9000.00 Total: Rs.80500.00 The respondents have filed objections to the report of the Architect and according to them, in substance, no damage has been caused at all and the premises have been handed over to the petitioner in good conditions subject to normal wear and tear for the last 19 years. No objections was raised at the time of handing over of possession of the premises.
(4) There is serious controversy between the parties about the damages, if any, caused to the premises by the respondent at the time of vacation. This raises highly complicated questions of fact, which cannot be decided in these contempt proceedings. Furthermore, I have seen the order of Bhandare, J. and also the undertakings given by Smt. Kamini Sodhani and Mr. Arun Sodhani. Bhandare, J. has no where ordered that the respondents will pay to the petitioner some amount on account of damages if caused by the respondents and assessed by a local commissioner whose decision shall be binding on them. It is no doubt true that the undertaking given in clause (b), quoted earlier, shows that the respondent will hand over vacant physical possession of the entire premises to the petitioner/D.H., or his legal heirs namely Smt.Gargi Khanna wife of Maj. B. L. Khanna and Shri Rajiv Khanna son of Maj. B.L. Khanna, on or before 31.12.1988, along with complete fixtures and fittings as per the list which was signed by the parties at the time of letting out the premises subject to normal wear and tear. But this undertaking docs not indicate that in case the complete fixtures and fittings as per the list which was signed by the parties at the time of getting out the premises subject to normal wear and tear are not handed over then the petitioners will be entitled to the amount of damages caused which may be assessed by an independent local commissioner which shall be considered final between the parties. I also do not find anything in the lease deed which shows that the petitioners will be entitled the amount for damages, if any, caused by the respondents to the property.
(5) Since there is no unequivocal and clearcut direction given by the court and there is also no mention in the undertakings given to the court for payment of some amount on account of damages, if any, caused to the property by the respondents it cannot be said that any direction of the court or undertaking has been flouted by the respondent. Therefore, in my opinion, no contempt appears to have been made out insofar as this aspect is concerned.
(6) At best it can be assumed in favor of the petitioners that since complete fixtures and fittings as per the list which was signed at the time of letting of the premises subject to normal wear and tear, if at all, were not handed over to them by the respondent at the time of vacation, that may amount to an infringement of a decretal order of the court. Contempt jurisdiction can be exercised only for what brings the administration of justice to disrepute and contempt petition is not a remedy for redressing a wrong that might be inflicted on a private party by infringement of an order of the court.
(7) In the light of the above discussion, no order can be passed in this contempt petition in the facts and circumstances of the case for payment of damages, if any, caused by the respondents to the premises. The relief claimed by the petitioners for payment of damages, therefore, is disallowed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty take appropriate steps at appropriate forum.