JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:— This application is by Kalu Ram and another, who were the respondents in Special Leave Petition No. 5597/87. The petitioner in the special leave petition was the firm, namely, Ganpat Ram Rajkumar. It appears that the applicants had filed proceedings for eviction against the firm in respect of the property in Narnaul in the State of Haryana under S. 13(3)(c) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. An order of eviction was passed against the said firm. Ultimately the High Court upheld the said order of eviction. The said firm came in special leave petition to this Court. This Court found that there was nothing to interfere with the order of eviction and on August 24, 1987 passed the following order :

"In view of the finding that the landlord has made out a case for eviction under Section 13(3)(c) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The order of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months on the petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition should also not prevent the petitioner to the benefit of putting back into possession in the equivalent accommodation in the reconstructed building provided the Court .lays down such condition while interpreting the provisions of the Act. We are informed that the question is pending consideration before this Court in some other cases i.e. W.P. Nos. 13385, 9921-24 of 1983 etc."

2. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the said firm wanted time to vacate the premises within six months from the date of the order and representation must have been made on behalf of the said firm that the ,usual undertaking will be filed in this Court. Upon that, this Court restrained eviction for a period of six months from the date of the said order. This Court further preserved the right of the said petitioner to the benefit of being put back in possession in the equivalent accommodation in the reconstructed building provided the Court laid down such condition while interpreting the provisions of the Act.

3. This Court recorded that the aforesaid question was pending consideration in this Court. However, it appears that the said firm did not file any undertaking, usual or otherwise. The usual undertaking to this Court means, inter alia, a statement that the party giving the undertaking is in possession of the premises and that it will further deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord or the respondent. As mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner did not file the undertaking though it had obtained time from this Court on that plea. Furthermore, the petitioner did not vacate the premises in question. It appears that Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram sons of Rajkumar and Ved Prakash who as sons of Ganpat Ram filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul for permanent injunction, restraining the present applicants from ejecting Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram. It may be mentioned that Ganpat Ram and Rajkumar are the partners of the petitioner-firm M/s. Ganpat Ram Rajkumar. The said firm and the partners thereof were bound in law to comply with the Order dated 24th August, 1987. In the said suit Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 3rd November, 1988. The learned Sr. Sub-Judge, Narnaul, by an order in an application under 0. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Suit No. 121/88 filed in the Court of Sr. Sub-Judge, Narnaul, by Sanjay Kumar, Lala Ram - minor sons of Rajkumar and Ved Prakash, son of Ganpat Ram as partners in the said firm made the order of injunction.

4. The said suit was instituted against Kalu Ram and Puran Chand sons of Roshan Lal and also against Ganpat Ram, In the order passed on the 12th February, 1988 in the said suit, the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul had stated that the present plaintiffs had claimed right