A wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court constitutes a contempt of court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for contempt of Court moved by the petitioner against the respondents for deliberately violating or flouting the solemn undertaking given to this Hon'ble Court by the respondents before Mr. Justice Sankar Prasad Mitra as His Lordship then was who issued the Rule for Contempt. The relevant order in the Rule is: It is ordered that the respondents Sm. Shantilata Mitra, Samirendra Nath Mitra, Sailendra Nath Mitra, Miss Namita Mitra, Mrs. Amita Bose and Mrs. Sabita Ghose to show cause why they should not be held guilty of contempt of this Court for the breach of undertaking given to this Hon'ble Court.

( 2 ) THIS case has a chequered history. The petitioner granted a sub-lease of the 'paramount Cinema' being premises No. 38, Upper Circular Road, Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the said premises to one Satyendra Nath Mitra, since deceased, for a term of 8 years more fully mentioned in the said lease. In July, 1955, the applicants instituted a suit being Suit No. 1833 of 1955 for ejectment against the said Satyendra Nath Mitra on the ground of default in payment of rent. On 10th July, 1958, a consent decree was passed where it was provided that the said Satyendra Nath Mitra, since deceased, would vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the said premises to the applicants on the expiry of the period covered by the option in the terms of the said lease dated 25th September, 1952. On 18th July, 1961 Satyendra Nath Mitra died leaving behind him the respondents as his heirs and legal representatives, the respondent No. 1 being his widow and the other respondents being his sons and daughters. In November, 1962, a further consent decree was passed in execution application of the said consent decree dated 10th July, 1958, recording the death of the said Satyendra Nath Mitra and extending the time to vacate the premises till 30th December, 1965. in terms of the Deed of Settlement put in. Then on 15th February, 1966, another consent order was passed before Mr. Justice Sankar Prasad Mitra as he then was in the application for execution of the said decree dated 10th July, 1958, wherein the respondents gave a solemn undertaking to Court to vacate and deliver up possession of the said premises by 31st July, 1967. On 7th June, 1967, i. e. , a few days prior to the zero hour for vacating the premises in terms of the undertaking an application was moved by the respondents for getting a discharge from the said undertaking given to this Court on 15th February, 1966, wherein they undertook to vacate on 31st July, 1967 and for an injunction restraining the applicants from evicting the respondents in execution of the said decree dated 15th February, 1966. Thereafter there was an interim order passed by Mr. Justice A. N. Sen, Thereafter that interim order was vacated and the parties were relegated to a suit. Thereafter a suit was filed on 7th July, 1967 and in that suit there was, inter alia, a prayer that the said order dated 15th February, 1966, of Mr. Justice Sankar Prasad Mitra as he then was to be declared void and unenforceable. The respondents obtained an interim stay but that was dismissed by Brother A. N. Sen on 18th August, 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed an appeal from the said order of dismissal of the application of stay by A. N. Sen, J. On 19th February, 1968, the present Rule Nisi was obtained for contempt of Court by the petitioner against the respondents for breach of undertaking given to this Court dated 15th February, 1966. On 21st February, 1968, the appeal filed by the respondents was disposed of and inter alia the hearing of the suit was expedited and the applicants were restrained from executing the said consent decree dated 10th July, 1958. till disposal of the suit. On 21st April, 1969, R. M. Datta, J. , decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. The applicants thereafter appealed from the said decree of Brother Datta and on 11th October, 1974, the said appeal was