I.P. Singh, J.
1. Gyan Chand and another, petitioners have through this petition sought punishment of Ramesh Chand respondent for contempt of court inasmuch as it is alleged that the respondent wilfully committed breach of the undertaking given by him to the court.
2. Annexure 1 is the order of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4262 of 1983 Ramesh Chand v. Gyan Chand dated 23-5-1983. The relevant portion of that order reads as follows:
The portion marked and signed by me by red ink today in the map (annexure IV) to the counter-affidavit by letters A B C D E F G H shall stand released in favour of the landlords respondents 1 and 2. The peaceful possession of the aforesaid portion shall be handed over by the petitioner tenant as has been undertaken by him today in Court within a period of one month from today. The' remaining portion of the accommodation in dispute shall remain in the tenancy of the petitioner at the same rent, i.e. Rs. 125/- per month. She (he) has himself undertaken to pay the same rent for the portion which is being allowed to remain in his tenancy.
3. It is alleged that Ramesh respondent (tenant-petitioner in the writ petition) was, therefore, supposed to hand over peaceful possession over the released portion of the accommodation to the present petitioners landlords by 23-6-1983. However, the respondent did not fulfil that undertaking deliberately and wilfully even till the present contempt petition was moved. In the counter-affidavit it was contended that the portion in question was vacated by the respondent within the time granted by the court and the respondent even requested the present petitioners (landlords) to take its possession but they deliberately avoided to do so With some ulterior motives. The respondent had even sent a telegram dated 22-6-1983 to the present petitioners about the said fact. Thus, the respondent's defence is that the present petitioners themselves in order to put the respondent in critical situation had deliberately avoided to take possession which was offered to them well within time.
4. The question for determination, therefore, is as to whether the present respondents did not deliver peaceful vacant possession over the accommodation in question to the present petitioners deliberately and wilfully or the present petitioners-landlords themselves deliberately avoided to take the said possession by 23-6-1983.
5. In para 5 of the present petition it was contended that the telegram sent by the respondent was given with false allegations whereas, in fact, the respondent had refused to deliver possession and had even quarrelled with the petitioners on that issue and even beat them for which a report (Annexure 3) was lodged by them with the police on 20-5-1983.
6. It was alleged in para 6 that the proceedings under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1973 for the ejectment of the respondent from the disputed accommodation were also initiated by the petitioners in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 1982. The suit was decreed on 24-9-1983 and execution proceedings were taken out by the petitioners. In the said execution proceedings the respondents filed an objection (Annexure 5) dated 27-9-1983 wherein it was stated by the respondent in paras 3,4 and 5 that according to the orders of the High Court the respondent was liable to deliver possession over half portion of the accommodation in question and he had no objection to deliver possession over the same. However, commission was issued to the Commissioner to deliver possession over the entire accommodation in suit. It was, therefore, prayed that possession be delivered on half portion only and the remaining half over which he was to remain as tenant per orders of the High Court be allowed to remain in possession of the respondents. It was further alleged in para 8 of the petition that the respondent had even resisted the Commissioner who had gone to deliver possession and had not permitted him to deliver the possession even on half portion over which delivery of possession was directed by the High Court. Annexure 6 is the Commissioner's report which indicates that on 27-9-1983, when he reached the spot for delivery of possession both the parties were there and when he told the respondent to deliver possession over that portion which was shown by red ink in the relevant map, then respondent did not permit entry into the building and did not deliver possession over the said portion. It was further reported that he could not execute the commission as he could not get police help.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, stressed that the above objection dated 27-9-1983 of the respondent, therefore, contains an admission that till that date he had not delivered possession over half portion over which he was by his own undertaking supposed to deliver peaceful possession by 23-6-1983. It is further contended that the above situation stood confirmed by the above Commissioner's report as well. It is also argued that the above circumstances clearly indicate that the present petitioners-landlords were taken to get possession and it would be preposterous to say that the landlord-petitioners had deliberately not taken possession even when offered by the respondent-tenant within the period fixed in the High Court order. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it was contended that since the portion shown by red colour in the copy of the map filed along with the writ petition was already vacated by the respondent, therefore, he had prayed (in execution court) that the decree be executed only over that portion. He had tried to explain that by the said assertion it could not be inferred that he was still in possession of the said released portion. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner's report was wholly collusive and in fact the Commissioner had not even visited the spot. However, looking to the affidavits of the parties and also to the circumstances of the case I have every reason to 'hold that the respondent had deliberately and wilfully committed breach of the undertaking given by him to this Court. He had not delivered peaceful possession to the petitioners over the released portion of the accommodation in terms of undertaking given by him to this Court as contained in this Court's order dated 23-5-1983. I agree with the petitioners that it would be preposterous to say that they had themselves not taken possession over the said portion deliberately to put the respondent in a critical position. The persons who had fought through various stages of the litigation to secure possession over the accommodation in question for themselves would be the last person to refuse delivery of possession to them. The statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as recorded on the order sheet of 20-2-1985 reveals that the landlord-petitioners had taken possession over the portion in dispute from the respondent-tenant on 11-8-1984 and that also through Police vide Annexure SA-11 filed on 27-8-1984.
8. The respondent had all along during the pendency of the present contempt petition maintained that the petitioners themselves were not taking possession and at no stage he tried to purge himself by offering to put the petitioners in possession. It is clear that ultimately possession was delivered through police help. The respondent was never remorseful of his action or conduct. He did not even think of tendering any apology to the court.
9. Apart from the relevant stands of the parties as discussed above, nothing worth consideration could be found in supplementary affidavit dated 8-8-1984, supplementary rejoinder affidavit of Gyan Chand, affidavit dated 13-11-1984 of Ramesh Chand and counter-affidavit dated 23-11-1984,
10. As a result of the above discussion 1 hold Ramesh Chand respondent guilty of civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 70 of 1971 and sentence him to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The same may be paid within a period of one month from today.