The main legal point established is that the interpretation of contractual language, especially in the context of Court agreements, is crucial in determining the nature and scope of undertakings and obligations.

JUDGMENT

Harries, C.J. - This is an appeal from a judgment of Gentle J. in a case of contempt of Court.

2. The present appellant and the respondent had entered into a tenancy agreement in respect of a room in No. 1A. Obhoy Goho Road, Calcutta. The respondent, who was the owner of these premisss had let to the defendant one room in the premises as a shop in which the trade of a butcher was to be carried on. In that room the appellant installed the images of Kali and Siva and to this the respondent objected. Eventually the respondent gave to the appellant notice to quit the premises and brought a suit for ejectment in this Court.

3. The suit was not contested, but on the contrary the parties came to an agreement. The terms of compromise were drafted and signed by the parties and these terms were handed, into Court and the compromise was made a rule of Court.

4. By the compromise the present appellant admitted that he was a monthly tenant of the premises which he used as a meat shop. He also admitted that the images Of Kali and Siva had been brought to the said shop without the consent of the respondent. He further admitted that this was a wrongful act on his part. The defendant then went on to admit that he had removed the image of Siva since the suit had been instituted and then admitted that the Kali image had never been consecrated and was not being worshipped and in fact that it had only been placed in the shop to attract customers. Then follows a most important paragraph and I think it advisable to set out that paragraph in extenso:

The defendant hereby undertakes to remove the said Kali image as also all permanent brick built and other structures in and around the place where the image of Kali is situate before he gives up possession of the saia shop room or at any time prior thereto on demand by the plaintiff or the owner for the time being of the said premises No. 1A. Abhoy Goho Road.

5. Then follows a term by which the present appellant was allowed to continue as a monthly tenant of this room at a rent of Rs. 18/-per month.

6. As I have said, the compromise was presented to the Court and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise.

7. Later, the respondent called upon the appellant to remove this image of Kali which was placed in the shop. The appellant declined to do so and accordingly the respondent applied to this Court to commit the appellant for contempt of Court on the ground that he had broken an undertaking which he had given to the Court that he would remove the Kali image when called upon to do so by the respondent.

8. Gentle J. who heard this application came to the conclusion that the present appellant had given the Court an undertaking to remove the Kali image and certain structures upon demand made by the respondent and as he had declined or neglected to do so after such demand he was guilty of a breach of his undertaking to the Court. The learned Judge held that this was a case of contempt, committed the appellant and ordered that he should be detained in prison for a period of one month, though he was given a month to remove the image and the structures and to pay certain sums to the respondent in which event he would not be imprisoned.

9. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that this committal for contempt of Court cannot possibly be sustained. Before the learned Judge it was argued that the appellant was under no obligation to remove the image or any structures until the termination of the tenancy. The learned Judge rightly pointed out that paragraph 6 of the compromise agreement makes it clear that the appellant would be bound to remove the image and structures either before he vacated the premises or at any time when called upon to do so by the respondent. The point made before the learned Judge has, very wisely, not been pressed before us. Clearly the respondent had a right to call upon the appellant to remove the image and the only question that we have to decide is whether his failure to re