Repeated breaches of undertakings and non-compliance with court orders can lead to a finding of contempt, and leniency may be misunderstood as weakness.

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioners due to the Respondent's wilful non-compliance of the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.M (M) No. 484/2020 with respect to the directions to the Respondent to pay use and occupation charges for the property bearing No. 1395, Dr. Mukherji Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 (`the subject property').

2. The Petitioners are the owners and the Respondent is the erstwhile occupier who was using the subject property for commercial purposes by letting it out as paying guest accommodation. The Coordinate Bench, by its order dated 15.02.2021 confirmed its earlier orders dated 01.10.2020 and 17.12.2020, and dismissed the Respondent's plea of financial inability.

3. This contempt petition was filed on 25.02.2021 as the Respondent failed to make payment of the use and occupation charges, while continuing to occupy the subject property. This Court in these proceedings gave multiple opportunities to the Respondent to comply with the order dated 15.02.2021; however, the Respondent failed to comply with the order and infact aggravated the contempt as noted hereinafter. The possession of the subject property was handed over by the Respondent on 15.12.2021 during the pendency of these proceedings.

4. The Respondent in these proceedings on 25.03.2021 gave an undertaking to this Court that he will pay the outstanding use and occupation charges; however, the Respondent breached the said undertaking as well.

5. In view of the wilful non-compliance of the order dated 15.02.2021 and the wilful breach of the undertaking dated 25.03.2021, by the order dated 24.01.2022, this Court held the Respondent guilty of having committed contempt of court and fixed the matter for sentencing. Subsequently at the request of the Respondent, this Court on 13.07.2022 gave a final opportunity to the Respondent to purge his contempt and to make payments of outstanding dues to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent has admittedly failed to clear the outstanding due and payable to the Petitioners, which currently stands at more than Rs. 32 lakhs.

6. Thereafter, the matter has been listed for awarding the punishment of sentence to the Respondent in furtherance of the order dated 24.01.2022.

7. In compliance with the order dated 07.02.2023, the Petitioner has filed written synopsis dated 13.02.2023 and the Respondent has filed brief synopsis dated 10.02.2023 respectively.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

9. The Respondent has failed to show any contrition and even in his written submissions filed on 10.02.2023, has sought to justify the noncompliance of the orders passed in CM(M) 484/2020 by assailing the validity of the orders, which are subject matter of compliance and also apportioning blame on the previous counsel representing him in the proceedings. To begin with, it would be relevant to note that orders dated 01.10.2020, 17.12.2020 and 15.02.2021 have become final, and appeal has not been preferred by the Respondent.

10. In fact, the order dated 13.07.2022 passed in these proceedings records the statement of the Respondent wherein he admits that the amount due and payable to the Petitioner is Rs. 24,20,000/. Therefore, submissions made in the written submission assailing the validity of the orders which are subject matter of compliance are in teeth of said admission as well as orders passed by this Court in these proceedings from time to time.

11. Briefly stated are the facts which have led to the filing of the present contempt petition and the wilful default of the Respondent are summarized herein:

11.1. The Respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 1337 of 2019 (`the civil suit') before the trial court seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the Petitioners herein from interfering in his enjoyment of the subject property and he claimed himself to be the