TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. I. Facts 2. A suit was filed on 07.05.2019 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-03, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [CS DJ No. 455/19], by the plaintiffs, against the defendant, for recovery of possession of immovable property - shop No. 8, 9, 10 and 11, No. 15-A/52, Plot No. 52, Block-15A, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 [hereinafter "the suit property"] and payment of arrears of rent, mesne profits and electricity charges. 3. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs was that they were the owners of the suit property, which had been leased to the defendant under a registered lease deed dated 18.09.2017 for a period of 11 months [from 01.09.2017 to 31.07.2018] on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was stated that the defendant defaulted in regular payment of rent and also failed to vacate the suit property upon the lapse of the lease period. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendant had caused substantial structural damage to the premises, and failed to pay consumption charges for electricity. Upon the defendant failing to vacate the property, despite the issuance of a legal notice dated 18.02.2019, the pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extension of two months to comply with both directions. Although the Court deprecated the action of the defendant, upon the plaintiffs expressing no objection to the grant of such an extension, the Court passed the following order: "1. The appellant had given an undertaking to this Court vide order dated 01.08.2022 that he will be vacating the premises within a period of six months and will be paying arrears of rent in equal instalments within six months. However, the appellant has failed to abide by the undertaking given to this Court, he has neither vacated the suit property nor paid any arrears of rent. 2. The appellant, who appears in person, has sought extension of two months time from today to vacate the suit premises as well as to pay arrears of rent. 3. Though the Court deprecates the action of the appellant of not complying with the order dated 01.08.2022, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is given to the appellant to comply with order dated 01.08.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent on instruction from his client who is present in court states that the respondent has no objection if a further period of 2 months is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of rent within a period of one month from today. 7. Though this Court deprecate the action of the appellant and contemplates issuing contempt notice to the appellant for violating the undertakings given to this Court on 01.08.2022 and 02.02.2023, it is made clear to the appellant, who appears in person, that if he fails to vacate the suit premises within the stipulated period of two months from today and clear all outstanding arrears of rent within a period of one month, this Court shall take a very strict view on the next date of hearing." [Emphasis supplied] 10. The defendant thereafter filed CM.APPL.18233/2023 for an extension of two years to vacate the suit premises. This application was rejected on 17.04.2023. 11. By an order dated 03.07.2023, the Court noted the aforesaid factual situation and the contention of the defendant that he wishes to continue to use the property and does not wish to vacate the same. He contended that he had filed complaints against three counsel, who had appeared on his behalf, for making wrong statements. The Court did not accept this contention in view of the undertakings given by the defendant in person on previous occasi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wantbhai Somabhai Bhandari [Ibid] that a litigant is liable to be punished for contempt if he/she, knowing the judgment or the order of the Court, and being conscious of its consequences and implications, acts in violation thereof. In such circumstances, the disobedience would be "wilful". While contempt jurisdiction should be invoked with great circumspection, making all allowances for errors of judgment, however, it is imperative to the rule of law that action is taken when a deliberate violation of orders of the Court is made out. Breach of an assurance, in the form of an undertaking given by counsel on behalf of the client to the Court [as opposed to undertaking given to a party to the lis], would also amount to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act. 17. Applying these principles to the present case, I am of the clear view that the defendant has committed contempt of Court for the following reasons: a. An undertaking was given by learned counsel for the defendant on 01.08.2022 to the effect that the suit premises would be vacated within a period of six months, and that arrears of rent would also be paid in equal instalments within the same period. It is recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, that he was aware of the nature of the undertakings, and has willfully failed to act in compliance thereof. f. The defendant's repeated assertions that he was misled by counsel are clearly untenable. The undertakings recorded had been given by the defendant in person, and the Court had also explained to the defendant himself, the implications of the order and the consequences of breach thereof. g. The defendant has taken advantage of the time granted by orders dated 01.08.2022, 02.02.2023 and 10.04.2023. He thus obviously understood the implications of the orders of the Court, to the extent that they postponed his liability to eviction from the suit premises. In these circumstances, I do not accept his self-serving assertion that he did not understand the effect of the undertakings that he had offered. 18. In the reply to the contempt notice, as stated above, the defendant has again sought to place the blame on three counsel who have appeared on his behalf, and has made arguments with regard to the total amount, in fact, paid to the plaintiffs. No apology has been tendered except in the following terms: "11. That the contemnor beg pardon unconditio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. The present case is one which calls for the exercise of such power. The defendant has already been granted three extensions of time to vacate the suit property. He has failed to do so, and now expresses a desire not to do so at all. His conduct thus continues to be contumacious and unworthy of any indulgence by the Court. 24. Two cases were cited by learned Amicus Curiae to suggest that the question of possession may also be left to the Executing Court - R.N. Dey and Others vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others, [(2000) 4 SCC 400] and Jamna Datwani vs. Kishin Datwani and Others. [Judgement dated 24.09.2014 in CONT.CAS(C) 652/2014] However, these judgments are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. They do not concern undertakings given by contemnors to the Court, in lieu of which they enjoyed a benefit conferred by the Court. On the other hand, several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, [Judgements in Mohammad Idris and Another v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji and Others [(1984) 4 SCC 216] and State Bank of India and Others v. Dr. Vijay Mallya [2022 SCC OnLine SC 826]] including in cases of undertakings given with regard to possession of immov....