K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in this contempt case is whether after having made an undertaking that the tenant would vacate the tenanted premises on the strength of the order of this Court he could wriggle out of the undertaking by not surrendering the premises and whether such a conduct would amount to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. This Court allowed C.R.P. 1666/02 preferred by the landlady and granted time to the tenant upto 30.6.2004 for vacating the premises on condition that he should file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court within one month stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid time and that he would pay the arrears of rent if any and also future rent. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below for easy reference.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant time to the tenant upto 30.6.2004 for vacating the tenanted premises provided he files an undertaking before the Rent Control Court within one month stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid time and that he would pay the arrears of rent if any and also future rent." "R.C.O.P. 70/97

3. The time granted by this Court expired on 30.6.2004. Tenant did not surrender 'the premises. Consequently landlady moved the executing Court and the executing Court ordered delivery and posted the case for report on 16.7.2004. Complaint of the landlady is that in the meantime, the tenant caused his daughter-in-law to file a suit, O.S.483/04 before the Munsiff s Court, Kollam for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the landlady from evicting her from the tenanted premises stating that she is in possession of the tenanted premises. Plaintiff in the suit has obtained an interim injunction against eviction as per order in I.A.2153/004 dated 24.6.2004. Landlady entered appearance in the suit and prayed for vacating the interim injunction. Consequently the Munsiff vacated the injunction order on 6.7.2004. While vacating the injunction order the learned Munsiff has stated as follows:

"The plaintiff could not produce any document to show that she is the tenant in the petition schedule shop room and admittedly she is the daughter-in-law of the second respondent in this case. Though the plaintiff/ petitioner alleged that she is in inimical terms with the second respondent, she failed to prove the same. On going through the entire facts and available evidence of this case it is proved that the first respondent already obtained an order for eviction in his favour from the Rent Control Court as well as from the Honourable High Court of Kerala. Therefore the plaintiff who is the daughter-in-law of the second defendant, filed this suit as well as the petitioner collusively with the second respondent only for delaying the execution proceedings in RCOP.70/97. The plaintiff could not produce any evidence to prove that aprima facie case is in her favour."

Complaint of the landlady is that in spite of the fact that the Civil Court has vacated the injunction order the tenant did not surrender the tenanted premises but instigated his daughter-in-law to file a claim petition before the executing Court so as to further delay the delivery of the property. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court to take appropriate action against the tenant for violating this Court's order under the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent tenant. Tenant took up the stand that he stopped the business in the tenanted premises and now the business is being carried on by his daughter-in-law. It is also stated that he was under the impression that his daughter-in-law would vacate the premises, but she filed C.S. No.483/04 against him and the petitioner herein and also filed a claim petition, E. A. 210/04 before the executing Court under O.XXI, R.97 and S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel a