AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI, J. (ORAL)

( 1 ) THIS is a contempt petition under ss. II and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act ). As far back as 1964, Sharafuddin and Shahabuddid made an application for ejectment of their tenant, Mohammed Din. from premises No. 7687, Ward No. XIV, Gali Takhat Wali Qasabpura, Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 18th August, 1967. The order of eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlords. Mohammed Din did not file any appeal. So the order of eviction became final.

( 2 ) IN 1968 the tenant Mohammed Din died leaving behind a widow, three sons and two daughters. In January, 1975 the widow also died. On 27th February, 1976, one of the tenant s son and daughter, namely, Saleemuddin and Mst. Ameequan, filed objections under ss. 3 and 4 of the Dehli Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976. They claimed that they were covered by the definition of the term tenant and could not therefore be ejected in execution of the eviction order. On 26th March, 1976, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed their objections as not maintainable. As the decree of eviction was passed against Mohammed Din in his life time the right of tenancy could not devolve on his heirs. This in short was the answer to the objections.

( 3 ) SALEEMUDDIN and Ameequan appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed their appeal on 18th October, 1976.

( 4 ) ONE important fact may be noticed here. When the appeal was brought Saleemuddin and Ameequan asked for stay of execution of the eviction proceedings. The tribunal granted stay on 29th March, 1976 on the appellants furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 5000 for the due performance of the decree or order that may be passed in the appeal. In pursuance of this order a bond of Rs. 5000 was furnished by Saffiquiddin S/o. Sadruddin on 6. th April, 1976. Saffiquiddin is father-in-law of Saleemuddin, one of the objectors. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, as I have said. And the landlords are now taking proceedings for the enforcement of the surety bond.

( 5 ) SALEEMUDDIN and Ameequan carried the matter in further appeal to the High Court. In November, 1976 they filed a second appeal against the Tribunal s order dated 18th October, 1976 rejecting their objections. The appeal came for hearing before B. C. Misra J. on 7th April, 1977. Saleemuddin made a statement before the Judge. He admitted the correctness of the order of eviction. He did not press his appeal. He asked for time to vacate the premises by 31st December, 1977. To this effect he gave an undertaking to the court which was accepted. Accepting the undertaking B. C. Misra J. dismissed the appeal but directed that the order of eviction will not be executed before 31st December. 1977.

( 6 ) A few days before 31st December, 1977, Haseenuddin, another son of Mohd. Din, filed a suit for declaration on 8th December, 1977, claiming that the eviction order passed against Mohammed Din was inexecutable against him. In the suit he claimed an interim injunction restraining the landlords from executing the eviction order. But stay was refused.

( 7 ) ON January 1, 1978, the landlords made an application tor execution. When the warrant of possession was sought to be executed by the landlords they were met with resistance. On, January 6, 1978, the bailiff made a report to the court that the premises were locked and he cannot deliver possession till he is empowered to break open the locks and doors.

( 8 ) ON January 9, 1978, one Mohd. Shariff filed objections in the execution proceedings before the Additional Controller claiming that he was in possession of the premises since 1951-52 and therefore warrant of possession should not be issued. These objections of Mohd. Shariff are still pending.

( 9 ) COUNSEL for the landlords has argued that the suit filed by Haseenuddin and the objections filed by Mohd. Shariff are at the insti- gation of Saleemuddin as he is the main man, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document