An undertaking given by a party in Court is the same thing as an undertaking given by a party to the Court.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Sections 2 (b), II and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been referred to a Pull Bench for determination of two important question, namely -

(A) Whether the undertaking, if any, given by ? party in Court is the same thing as an undertaking given by a party to the Court, and

(B) Whether as a consequence of the undertaking given on the basis of which the order of the Court , has been made, the incorporation of the terms on. which the matter is disposed of, would convert the terms into an undertaking to the Court.

( 2 ) SHRI Sardari Lal, petitioner is the owner and landlord of House No. 183 and 185 (New), Ward No. VIII, Gali Bandook Wali, inside Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-6. He filed a petition under Section. 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 seeking permission to institute a suit petition for obtaining an order for the eviction of his tenant Shri Ram Rakha Mal, respondent, from the said premises. The Competent Authority (Slums) in its order dated October 27, 1970 held that the respondent is affluent enough to secure an alternative accommodation without creating a slum and granted the permission sought. The petitioner then filed on November 19, 1970 a petition for eviction of the respondent from premises No. 183 and 185, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri gate, Delhi (for short called the premises indispute) under Section 14 (1) (a) (e) and (J ) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, being eviction petition No. E-692 of 1970 in the Court of Rent Controller,. Delhi. By order dated April 12, 1974, Shri Mohd. Shamim, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi allowed the petition under Section 14 (1) (a) and (e ). The respondent was allowed six months time to vacate the premises in dispute. The respondent was further directed to clear the entire arrears of rent for the period from December 1, 1967 till the date of the order within one month from the date of-the order. It was ordered that\ in case the respondent cleared the entire arrears of rent within the time allotted- to him. the petition on the ground of non-payment of rent would stand dismissed.

( 3 ) THE respondent preferred an appeal, being R. C. A. 442174 before the Rent-Control Tribunal, Delhi under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the eviction order dated April 12, 1974 passed by Shri Mohd. Shamim. The appeal came up for hearing before the Rent Control Tribunal; Delhi on September 1, 1975. It is opposite to reproduce the entire proceeding of that date: "present : Parties with counsel. . The parties have compromised. Let it be recorded. 1-9-1975 sd/- J. D. Jain,rct Statement of Ram Rakha appellant on S. A. and his counsel Shri Kishori Lal Adv. I withdraw this appeal. However, I may be allowed tune to vacate the premises in question after the decision of my L. P. A. No. 102 of 1969 pending in Delhi High Court on. the question of title, in case the L. P. A. is decided against me, I will surrender vacant possession of the premises in question within 15 days of the judgment of the High Court. I will also comply with the order of the trial Court regarding arrears of rent and I be given time for the same upto v. 31-12-1975. In case I do not deposit the amount of arrears of rent till date by or before thirty-first of December, 1975 as per orders of the trial Court and future rent damages month bymonth, as per order of the Trial Court. I shall be liable to eviction forthwith. The parties be left to bear their own costs. ROandac 1-9-1975 sd/- Ram Rakha sd/- Kishori Lal sd/- J. D. Jain, Advocate R. C. T. " "statement of Sardari Lal respondent on S. A. and his counsel Shri V. K. Makhija, Advocate. I have heard the statement of the appellant. " The appeal be dismissed as withdrawn but time be given to the appellant for vacating the premises in question and payment of arrears of rent as prayed. RCandac Sd/ J. D Jain, 1-9-75" Sd. . 00 Sardari Lal Sd. . 00 V. K. Makhija, Advocate. ORDER : As per compromise between the partie