ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14th September, 2010 by which the Delhi High Court had rejected the second appeal filed by the tenant against the decree of eviction.

3. By our order dated 06th October, 2010, we dismissed the special leave petitions by the following order:

Taken on Board.

Heard.

We find no merit in the special leave petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. However, we grant six months' time from today to the Petitioner to vacate the premises in question on furnishing usual undertaking before this Court within six weeks from today.

4. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that the tenant had to vacate the premises in question within six months' from the date of dismissal of the special leave petitions and to furnish usual undertaking within six weeks from that date. It is extremely unfortunate that neither an undertaking was furnished nor did the tenant vacate the premises in question on the expiry of six months, i.e., 06th April, 2011. Instead, frivolous objections were filed in the execution proceedings, and our order was flouted. Hence, these contempt petitions have been filed by the landlord.

5. It is deeply regrettable that in our country often litigations between the landlord and tenant are fought up to the stage of the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses in this Court then he starts a second innings through someone claiming to be a co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in some other capacity and in the second round of litigation the matter remains pending for years and the landlord cannot get possession despite the order of this Court The time has come that this malpractice must now be stopped effectively.

6. After our order dated 06th October, 2010, the counsel of the tenant should have advised the tenant to vacate the premises in question like a gentleman before or on the expiry of six months from 06.10.2010 but unfortunately they advised the tenant to put up some other person claiming independent right against the landlord as a sub-tenant and start a fresh round of litigation to remain in possession. In this manner, our order dated 06th October, 2010 was totally frustrated.

7. In these contempt proceedings, we had passed the following order on 27th April, 2011:

Very serious allegations have been made in these contempt petitions. By our Order dated 06.10.2010 we had dismissed the Special Leave Petitions of M/s Udham Singh Jain Charitable Trust-the tenant by giving it six months time from that date to vacate the premises in question on furnishing usual undertaking before this Court within six weeks from that date. Despite that Order, the Petitioner in the original Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of 2010 has not vacated the premises in question nor did it file any undertaking before this Court. Instead, to frustrate the Order of this Court dated 06.10.2010 it got some persons to file frivolous objections before the executing court. One objector is none else than the son of one of the trustees of the tenant-trust, another objector is one of the trustees claiming to be the sub-tenant.

In our opinion, such conduct is contemptuous and is simply unacceptable. It prima facie seems to us that the alleged contemnors are only creating frivolous objections to start a second round of litigation, and frustrate the Order of this Court dated 06.10.2010. We have noted that the tenancy was for 10 years effective from 01.11.1982. Hence, the Respondents in these contempt petitions (Petitioner in the original Special Leave Petitions Nos. 27755-27759 of 2010 and the objectors) should have handed over peaceful, vacant possession on 01.11.1992, but they have not done so till now.

Issue notice.

Dasti in addition.

List on 10th May, 2011 by which time counter affidavit may be filed. It is made clear that the case will not be adjourned on that day. There are very serious allegations of flouting the Order d