JUDGMENT - H.D. PATEL, J.:---This revision is directed against the order dated 17-2-1988 passed by Shri K.J. Rohi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur (In-charge Judge of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur) on Exh. 1 in Small Cause Darkhast No. 103 of 1988, whereby the learned Judge directed the issue of warrant of possession.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision are rather unusual. The applicant is a tenant of house situated on Plot No. 3, Shirkey Layout, Chhaoni, Nagpur, since the month of April, 1985 on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-. The non-applicant is the owner of the said premises and hence the landlord of the applicant. Since the applicant was not paying the rent regularly, the non-applicant applied for distress warrant before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, vide Application No. 14 of 1986 and the moveables belonging to the applicant came to be attached. At the relevant time the rent of Rs. 16,200/- was outstanding against him. Even thereafter the applicant failed to pay the rent and further outstanding arrears were to the tune of Rs. 9,000/-. Another application for distress warrant was also filed and that was registered as Application No. 85 of 1986. the goods belonging to the applicant were again attached. The goods so attached under the two warrants were to be sold on 27-10-1986 and 13-11-1986. it appears that the applicant with a view to save the goods from being sold gave an undertaking before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, whereby he agreed to pay the entire rent and also vacate the house by 31st March, 1987. Some amount was paid by the applicant in cash.

3. Since, however, the applicant did not abide by his undertaking a petition for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act was filed by the non-applicant. The said application was registered as Contempt Petition No. 13 of 1987. When the petition was listed for hearing, the applicant again gave an undertaking that he would pay the entire amount of rent on or before 29th April, 1987. Acting on this undertaking the contempt petition was disposed of by this Court. Once again the applicant committed the breach of the undertaking. The premises were also not vacated by the applicant.

4. The non-applicant, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 50 of 1987 which came to be decided by this Court on 16-12-1987 holding the applicant Ashok guilty of contempt of Court, the operative part of which reads as under :

“38. As regards the action to be taken against the respondent for contempt of Court committed by him by breach of his undertaking in respect of non-payment of arrears of rent and vacation of the tenanted premises, it may be that there is no extenuating circumstances in his favour. He has strangeously justified his action and even as regards non-payment of rent his apology is not clean and unequivocal. Moreover, his conduct subsequent to 29-4-1987 would show that he wants to harass the petitioner by not clearing his arrears and not paying rent even thereafter regularly. Taking all these circumstances into consideration the ends of justice would be served if a fine of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the respondent for committing contempt of Court in not complying with his undertakings about payment of arrears of rent and about vacation of the tenanted premises. The respondent is directed to pay the above fine of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which he is directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for one week.

39. Besides the above punishment for committing contempt of Court the respondent is directed to comply with his undertaking relating to vacation of the suit premises by giving vacant possession to the petitioner of the said premises on or before 31-1-1988. The respondent is also directed as per his original undertaking dated 27-10-1986 to pay the rent upto the date of vacation of the tenanted premises, on or before 5-2-1988. If any of the above directions are breached the respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document