Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- This contempt petition is filed by the appellant-landlords in Pankaj Bhargava v. Mohinder Nath{(1991) 1 SCC 556} complaining that the respondents, Shri Ram Prakash and Shri Mohinder Nath have violated the undertaking given by them to this Court by not vacating the house as undertaken by them.

2. The petitioners (landlords) applied under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on 5-4-1978 seeking permission for creating tenancy for a limited period of five years which was allowed on 6-4-1978. Since the tenants failed to vacate at the end of five years period, the landlords applied to the Rent Controller for putting them in possession of the premises. The respondent-tenants contested the said application inter alia on the ground that a new tenancy was created with effect from 6-4-1983 immediately upon the expiry of the original five years period. The Rent Controller rejected all the defences taken by the respondent-tenants and allowed the petitioners application which was affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal on appeal. However, on second appeal, the High Court reversed the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority holding that the very creation of the original tenancy was an illegal one. Accordingly, it dismissed the landlords application for possession. The petitioner-landlords approached this Court by way of the aforesaid civil appeal which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 11-12-1990.

3. On 17-12-1990, the respondent-tenants applied for time to vacate the premises. They were permitted to continue to occupy the premises till 30-4-1991 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed within two weeks. The respondent, Ram Prakash executed and furnished an undertaking to this Court to vacate the premises and to hand over the same to the landlords on or before 30-4-1991.

4. On 3-5-1991, the landlords filed the present contempt petition complaining that the tenants have failed to vacate and hand over the premises by 30-4-1991 as per their undertaking. Notices were issued and served upon the respondents. Mohinder Nath took up the plea that he had vacated the premises as far back as 1982 and was no longer concerned with the premises since then. The respondent, Ram Prakash took up the plea that a new tenancy was created between the parties by mutual agreement on 15-4-1991 where under not only the rent was enhanced but certain amounts were also paid to the landlords by him. The petitioners denied any such agreement and the receipt of monies. They characterised it as a forgery and fabrication. Inasmuch as the respondent, Ram Prakash filed certain affidavits in support of his plea, this Court by its order dated 20-8-1991 directed the District Judge to enquire into the truth of the claim put forward by respondent, Ram Prakash, and to record and submit a firm finding in that behalf. Accordingly, the learned District Judge took up the enquiry. The respondent, Ram Prakash examined as many as 19 witnesses before the learned District Judge and filed a good number of documents. The petitioner-landlords also examined several witnesses and produced certain documents in support of their case. After an elaborate consideration of the said material, the learned District Judge submitted his findings. His report runs into as many as 71 pages. He found that the claim set up by respondent, Ram Prakash, was false, that no such fresh tenancy was created on 15-4-1991 nor any amount paid by him to the landlords as alleged by him.

5. Respondent, Ram Prakash filed objections to the said report. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlords and Shri Ram Prakash, appearing in person.

6. It may be noticed that this is not the first occasion that the tenant has set up a new tenancy. A similar plea was set up by him in the Rent Control proceedings, as stated hereinbefore, which was rejected by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The High Court no d