1963 (6) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Party Found in Contempt for Failing to Vacate Premises: Fine, Imprisonment, and Costs Imposed

Chhaya Debi Versus Lahoriram Prashar

The Court found the opposite party guilty of contempt for failing to vacate the premises as undertaken. The opposite party was fined Rs. 500, with a ... - Issues Involved:1. Breach of undertaking to vacate premises.2. Service of notice.3. Validity of fresh tenancy claim.4. Compliance with terms of compromise.5. Nature of undertaking.6. Consequences of breach of undertaking.7. Tenant identity and eviction.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Breach of Undertaking to Vacate Premises:The primary issue was whether the opposite party breached an undertaking given to the Court to vacate premises No. 70, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Calcutta, by the end of July 1962. The Court found that the opposite party did not vacate the premises as undertaken, despite claiming to have offered possession through letters dated July 25 and 30, 1962. The Court held that the opposite party did not honor the undertaking, as he continued to possess the premises until at least October 1962.2. Service of Notice:The issue of proper service of notice was raised. Initially, the notice was served by affixation, deemed defective, leading to a fresh service attempt. The opposite party refused to accept the notice, and it was again served by affixation. Despite the opposite party's claim of not receiving any notice, the Court found his story unconvincing. The opposite party's personal appearance in Court and subsequent filing of a Vakalatnama indicated awareness of the proceedings.3. Validity of Fresh Tenancy Claim:The opposite party claimed a fresh tenancy was created in August 1960, supported by a rent receipt. However, the Court found this claim unconvincing and inconsistent with the opposite party's previous statements and actions, including a compromise petition in Misc. Appeal No. 71 of 1961, where he acknowledged the receipt as mesne profits and agreed not to assert tenancy rights. The Court held that no fresh tenancy was established.4. Compliance with Terms of Compromise:The opposite party argued that the decree in S.A. 770 of 1958 was adjusted by a compromise in Misc. Appeal No. 71 of 1961. The Court found that the compromise did not vary the original decree's terms regarding possession. The opposite party failed to comply with the compromise terms, as he did not pay arrears of mesne profits by the stipulated date, leading to the continuation of execution proceedings.5. Nature of Undertaking:The Court examined whether the undertaking was given to the Court or the petitioner. Despite the undertaking not being explicitly stated as given to the Court, the Court interpreted it as such, based on the context and the opposite party's acknowledgment during proceedings. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings where undertakings were deemed given to the decree-holder.6. Consequences of Breach of Undertaking:The Court considered whether the decree provided consequences for breach of the undertaking. It concluded that the decree only addressed consequences for non-payment of mesne profits but did not specify consequences for failing to vacate the premises. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to proceed with contempt charges for the breach of the undertaking.7. Tenant Identity and Eviction:The opposite party attempted to argue that Lilabati was the tenant, not him. However, the Court noted that the opposite party had consistently claimed tenancy rights in previous proceedings and had suffered the ejectment decree in that capacity. The Court rejected the opposite party's late assertion and held him responsible for delivering possession.Conclusion:The Court found the opposite party guilty of contempt for not vacating the premises as undertaken. The opposite party was fined Rs. 500, with a default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment. The petitioner was awarded costs of five gold mohurs. The judgment emphasized the importance of honoring undertakings given to the Court and the consequences of disingenuous conduct.