9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority (slums) in its order dated October 27, 1970 held that the respondent is affluent enough to secure an alternative accommodation without creating a slum and granted the permission sought. The petitioner then filed on November 19, 1970 a petition for eviction of the respondent from premises Nos. 183 and 185. Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi (for short called the premises in dispute) under S. 14(1), (a) (e) and (j), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, being eviction petition No. E-692 of 1970 in the Court of Rent Controller, Delhi. By order dated April 12, 1974, Shri Mohd. Shamim, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, allowed the petition under S. 14(1)(a) & (e). The respondent was allowed six months' time to vacate the premises in dispute. The respondent was further directed to clear the entire arrears of rent for the period from December 1, 1967 till the date of the order within one month from the date of the order. It was ordered that in case the respondent cleared the entire arrears of rent within the time allotted to him, the petition on the ground of non-payment of rent would stand dismissed. 3. The respondent preferred an appeal, being R.C.A. 442/74 before the Rent Control Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying with the same, he shall be liable to eviction forthwith. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Announced. 1-9-1975 Sd/- J. D. Jain. Rent Control Tribunal Delhi. 4. L.P.A. No. 102 of 1969 referred to in the statements and orders of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, had arisen in these circumstances. House Nos. 182-185 (New) or VIII/97 (old) in Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, was an acquired evacuee property. The property was at first valued at more than ₹ 10,000/- but the respondent appealed against the valuation and got the valuation reduced to less than ₹ 10,000/-. The property thus became allottable, property within the meaning of Displaced Persons' (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act and the Rules. The petitioner held a verified claim and being an occupant claimant of the property applied on February 15, 1962 for its transfer. He prayed in the alternative that at least the portion occupied by him should be separated from the rest of the property and allotted to him. The Managing Officer, however, on April 11, 1962 entered into an agreement with the respondent for transfer of the property to him. The petitioner filed a revision against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier expressed. Under Section 27, Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the order dated November 16, 1962 had become final and it could not be revised on merits. Furthermore, the learned single Judge noticed that under Rule 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules the petitioner as the claimant occupant was the person to whom the property was to be allotted in preference to a non-claimant occupant like the respondent. The order of November 16, 1962 was held as a correct order in law. L.P.A. No. 102/69 was preferred by the respondent under Clause X, Letters Patent, against the judgment dated September 16, 1969 passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal was dismissed on April 4, 1979 by a Division Bench of this Court. 6. The respondent is sought to be committed for contempt of Court for committing willful breach of an undertaking given by him to the Court. The petitioner's case in the petition is that the alleged contemner had given an undertaking to the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi on September 1, 1975, and was bound to surrender vacant possession of the premises in dispute within 15 days of the decision dated April 4, 1979 by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word 'Court', but it is well settled that the word 'Court' used in the Act is not confined to ordinary Civil. Criminal and Revenue Courts. A Court is charged with a duty to decide disputes in judicial manner, and it declares the rights of parties in a definite judgment which has finality and authoritativeness. To decide in a judicial manner involves that the parties are entitled as a matter of right to be heard in support of their respective claims/stand and to adduce evidence in proof of it. The evidence is and may be legally taken on oath. The obligation to give a decision is on a consideration of the evidence adduced and submissions made and in accordance with law. When a question arises as to whether an authority created by a statute is a Court as distinguished from a quasi-judicial Tribunal, what has to be decided is, whether having regard to the provisions of the statute it possesses all the attributes of a Court. A question was referred to a Full Bench of this Court for decision as to whether the Rent Control Tribunal while dealing with an application under sub-section (4) of Section 38 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is a 'Court' for purposes of Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the parties negotiated a settlement outside Court and came to the Court on September 1, 1975 when they reported that they have compromised and this is borne from the first order of the Court. It was reported to the Court says the counsel, that the parties were agreeing to certain terms and the same may be recorded. The respondent promised to surrender vacant possession of the premises in dispute within 15 days of the judgment of the High Court in case L.P.A. No. 102 of 1969 was decided against the respondent and this agreement he made was not with the Court but with the petitioner. There is no user of the word "undertaking" in the statement of the respondent and thus premise means a solemn premise to someone else and not to the Court. It does not become anything more than a promise when the Court passes an order in terms thereof. The counsel contends that the compromise eviction order is no more than an agreement of the parties under the provisions of O. 23 R. 3, Civil P.C. with the sanction of the Court super-added. The Court had no part to play but only to record the agreement between the parties as the appeal was being withdrawn. It has no greater sanctity than an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meaning. Let us analyze the position in the case. The petitioner first sought and obtained on October 27, 1970 permission to institute a petition for obtaining an order for the eviction of the respondent from the Competent Authority (Slums). He then filed a petition under section 14(1) (a), (e) and (j), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and obtained on April 12, 1974 an order for the eviction of the respondent from the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. The respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and was pending on September 1, 1975. The parties did not enter into any written agreement outside the Court. The compromise came into existence in the presence of the Court. The petitioner stated on oath in these proceedings that the respondent gave an undertaking before the Tribunal on September 1, 1975 that he would surrender the possession within 15 days of the decision of L.P.A. In the cross-examination he persisted that the undertaking was given in the Court and by undertaking he meant that the respondent had agreed to vacate the premises within 15 days before the Court from the date of the decision of the L.P.A. The respondent has not taken courage to ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is not for drawing up proceedings for contempt of Court against the respondent and he has rightly not sought it on this ground. The petitioner's remedy which he has already sought, is to approach the Addl. Rent Controller for directing a warrant for delivery of possession. 12. The respondent made a statement to withdraw his appeal. It is unconditional. The withdrawal of the appeal is not linked with the grant of time. It is only in the next sentence of the first part of his statement that the respondent seeks time to vacate the premises in dispute and he says 'I will surrender vacant possession of the premises in question within 15 days of the judgment of the High Court'. It is a formal promise or pledge to surrender vacant possession. The respondent makes this representation in Court to obtain a benefit for himself. The words used are not "to hand over" vacant possession winch may suggest an agreement with the petitioner. There is a clear and express solemn promise given by the respondent to the Court when he offers to surrender vacant possession. The order for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the petitioner had become executable o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.P.A. No. 102/69. The petitioner states that time be given to the respondent for vacating the premises in question. This agreement he is not making with the respondent. The petitioner prays to the court to give time to the respondent in consideration of solemn promise of surrender of vacant possession. It is in context of these peculiar facts that the statement of the respondent made in court on September 1, 1975 is to be construed. An assurance to or agreement with the petitioner without providing for consequences of the breach looses all significance and thus a compromise inter se could never have been intended by the parties. A solemn promise to the Court need not provide in the statements or in the orders of the court the consequences of breach as the law takes its care. An undertaking can be enforced by proper committal proceedings. A cumulative effect of all these particular facts and the terms of the statements persuade us to hold that the respondent did give an undertaking to the Court. 13. The fact that the undertaking does not expressly mention that it was given to the court is a matter of no consequences as on the interpretation of the terms of the statement and a long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In all orders and decrees of the Court, whenever the expression "a party undertakes" has been used, it has always borne the meaning that the undertaking has been to the Court. The Advocate General has also referred us to the forms and orders that appear in "Seton on Decrees and Orders," and in those forms the expression used has always been "a party undertake" and never "a party undertakes to the Court." Therefore, in English Courts as well, the expression "a party undertakes" when used in decrees or orders has come to acquire the same technical meaning. What is more, it has been held by Bhagwati, J. - an opinion with which I entirely agree that it has been the longstanding practice on the original side that, whenever counsel wishes to give an undertaking to the Court, he never expressly uses the words "to the court" but merely states that he undertakes on behalf of his client, and that undertaking is always understood to be an undertaking to the Court which could be enforced by committal proceedings .........." The contra view taken by Harries, C.J. of the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto's case ((1948) 49 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was observed :- "......... The respondent filed a petition for extension of time; and when the matter was being heard, during the discussion at the bar, the respondent agreed that he would unconditionally surrender the premises on or before a particular day and the petitioners also agreed to give time till that day. This agreement was in the presence of the Court; and it was not an agreement come to by the parties outside court and reported to the court. It is therefore not correct to treat the undertaking given by the respondent before the Court only as an undertaking given to the other side ............." 16. In "Govind Kaur v. Hardev", (1982 1 Ren CR 323, a question arose before a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court whether the tenant was guilty of the contempt of Court. On March 13, 1980 when the judgment was pronounced the counsel for the tenant made a request to court for grant of time to vacate shop No. 6. She was granted time of two months. She undertook to deliver vacant possession of shop No. 6 to the landlord on or before the expiry of two months from that day. It was held :- "......... This cannot be said to be an arrangement by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises in dispute to he petitioner within the stipulated time. The counsel for the respondent has not addressed us that the breach is not willful. Civil contempt under S. 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been defined to mean willful disobetente to any judgment decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The respondent gave an undertaking to the Court and there is a willful breach of that undertaking. The respondent is thus guilty of the contempt of court. No doubt, the court should exercise the power to commit for contempt only sparingly, but should not fail to guard it zealously. The Court should not allow a party to treat the court lightly or to commit breach of an undertaking given to the Court with impunity. It was ruled in "Advocate General Bihar v. M. P. Khair Industries, . "............ The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of projecting the interest of the public in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
