A compromise between parties on the basis of which a decree has been made is not an undertaking to the court, and terms in a consent decree that do not relate to the suit cannot be enforced in execution of the decree.

( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this Miscellaneous Petition are that the non-petitioner (Devendra Nath Gupta), who is a tenant of the petitioner Ramjiwan, filed a suit before the Rent Controller, under Section 8 of the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act of 1955 (Act No. 23 of 1956), alleging that the landlord, had, without sufficient cause cut off the tenant's electric connection and prayed that the landlord be directed to restore it. This was resisted by the landlord on the ground that because the tenant had not paid electric charges, the Electric Company had cut off the connection of the whole house, including the portion in dispute. The Rent Controller ordered the landlord to restore the electric connection within 2 days from the order and, awarded compensation for the inconvenience caused to the tenant at the rate of Rs.-/8/- per day. Both the parties went in appeal before the District Judge, who rejected the appeal of the landlord but allowed the appeal of the tenant, and raised, the amount of compensation from annas eight per day to Rs. 2/- per day, the maximum amount that he could have awarded under the Act. AS the order of the District Judge was final, the landlord, Ramjiwan filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the course of the hearing of the petition before the High Court, the parties arrived at a compromise and the petition instead of being considered on merits was disposed of according to the terms of the compromise.

( 2 ) THIS is an application of the landlord, complaining that the tenant did not observe the terms of the compromise and that in the circumstances the landlord was entitled to the eviction of the tenant from the premises according to the compromise. The prayers made in the present petition are in the main two : One: That contempt proceedings may be taken against the opposite party for not obeying the order of the Court and not acting according to the compromise. Two : That the tenant Devendra Nath Gupta be directed to vacate the premises and pay up the arrears due.

( 3 ) IN respect of the first contention, namely, that contempt proceedings may be taken against the tenant, it is argued by Mr. Hariharniwas Dwivedi, that the tenant, in not carrying out the terms of the compromise (a compromise is as undertaking to the Court) has committed contempt of the Court and must therefore be punished for it. He relies upon two authorities : (1) Bajranglal Gangadhar v. Kapur Chand Ltd. , AIR 1950 Bom 336. (2) Suretennessa Bibi v. Chintaharan Dass, (S) AIR 1955 Cal 182.

( 4 ) IN both these cases it has been held that when the terms of compromise are not carried out by any party then that party is guilty of a deliberate breach of the personal undertaking given by him to High Court and that this misconduct amounts to contempt.

( 5 ) I propose to examine both the rulings separately.

( 6 ) I shall first deal with the Bombay case AIR 1950 Bom 336. In a suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, the parties compromised the action and the consent terms were reduced to writing and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The defendant failed to observe the terms of the compromise whereupon a motion was. taken out by the plaintiff for contempt of court. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court ordered that the defendant should carry out the undertaking within one month from the date of the order, otherwise a warrant would issue for the committal of the defendant to prison. An appeal was filed against the order of the Single Judge before a Division Bench. In the Division Bench Chagla, C. J. , as he then was, took the view that the compromise bet- ween the parties recorded by the Court was also an undertaking to the Court, and this undertaking can be enforced by proper committal proceedings. In adopting this view Chagla, C. J. referred to Oswald on Contempt from which the following passage was also reproduced in the judgment: "an undertaking entered into or giv