Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) This petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act on behalf of a registered Society Arya Shiksha Samiti through its Secretary, Shri Prem Raj Sharma against Sh. Amar Nath and Sh. Kishore Lal for having violated the undertaking given to this court by Shri Kishore Lal to vacate certain premises by 26th February, 1981 and for failure to pay the rent for the period 17th January, 1972 till the end of May, 1976 within three months thereof and to pay future rent from June, 1976 by the 15th of next English calendar month.
(2) The petition for contempt came to be filed in the following circumstances :- The petitioner-society filed a petition for eviction against Amar Nath and Kishore Lal under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The case of the society was that these premises were required for furtherance of the activities of the society and on that ground the orders for ejectment were passed by Avadh Behari, J. on the statement of Kishori Lal on behalf of the tenant and on the statement of Shri Anand Prakash Sharma as Vice-President of the Society who were appellants before this Court in the said appeal. In the compromise the parties had agreed that an order for eviction may be passed against the tenants but the order will not be executable till the expiry of five years from the date of the compromise. In the compromise, it was also stated that the tenant will pay the arrears of rent for the period 17-1-1972 till the end of May, 1976 at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per month within three months from the date of the order and future rent had to be paid by 15th of next month.
(3) The case of the petitioner-society is that the rent was not paid in pursuance of the alleged undertaking. This application for taking contempt was filed in this Court on 14th January, 1981. That means the petition was filed before even the time had expired for vacation of the premises. thereforee, this petition so far as it now sought to be proceeded for failure of delivery of possession is premature.
3-A.Coming to the question, whether there was any breach of undertaking in payment of rent, a bare of perusal of the statements and the order passed by Avadh Behari, J. show that undertaking was given only in relation to the delivery of possession within five years of the date of the passing of the order. No undertaking was given for payment of rent. If the rent was to be paid, rent will be paid but there was no undertaking in favor of the court. thereforee, for the failure to pay the rent, there is no contempt of this Court.
(4) Mr. Arun Kumar, however, submits that Sultan Singh, J. had recorded the statement of Kishori Lal on 27th February, 1981 and on that day, Kishori Lal has stated that the possession has not been delivered as per the undertaking given before Avadh Behari, J. But it was stated that the possession has not been delivered and he had approached the landlord who asked him to increase the rent if he wanted to continue the tenancy and that he had agreed to the increase of rent, thereforee, he has not handed over the possession. It was also stated that Mr. Pran Nath Sarveria is one of the office bearers of the decree holder with whom he had this settlement. Though no averments had been made for any contempt for non-delivery of possession but it appears that after the statements were recorded, replies were also filed to the show cause notice which had been issued against the respondents as to why action should not be taken against them for contempt. In the reply affidavit which was filed on behalf of respondent No. I , it was stated on behalf of Amar Nath that the firm M/s. Ganesh Textile Industries which was carry- ing on partnership business in the premises in dispute had been dissolved with effect from 25th February, 1972 and that he has nothing to do with the pre- mises. So far as Kishori Lal, who had made statement before the High Court was concerned, he filed a detailed affidavit and his plea inter alias was that he even made enquiries for payment of rent from counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar. But even Shri Arun Kumar could not disclose to him the office bearers to whom the rent could be paid. I have already noticed that so far as the payment of rent is concerned, there is no undertaking. There- fore there is no question of contempt arose. But since after issuance of show cause notice and the statement of K-ishori Lal having been recorded by Sultan Singh,J. on 27th February, 1981 for the failure of the alleged contempers to have handed over the possession as undertaken by them, the petition for con- tempt was admitted. I have gone through the question whether respondent* have committed any contempt in violating their undertakings. In reply thereto, the respondents have pleaded that various elections were held in the Society and Sli. Anand Prakash Sharma has ceased to be the Vice-President of Society and instea.d different office bearers have been elected and intimation thereof had been sent to the Registrar of Society and it is a different set of office bearers with whom a compromise was arrived at which compromise had been filed in the executing court and the executing court had recorded the satisfaction of the decree by order dated 18th February, 1981 and in view of this subsequent settlement before the expiry of the time granted to the respondents, the decree has been satisfied by a compromise.
(5) Mr. Arun Kumar learned counsel for the Society however, submits that the compromise has been arrived at by Ex-un-authorised persons and do not represent the Society and are not its office bearers and thereforee this court should go into the question whether the compromise was arrived at with an authorised person.
(6) This contempt petition had come up before me on 28th July, 1982 also when certain affidavits were directed to be filed and I had noticed this plea on behalf the respondents. The fact remains that satisfaction of decree remains recorded on the record of the executing court and no steps had been taken whatsoever until now on behalf of the petitioner to either have that compromise set aside or to even challenge it in appropriate forum. The persons with whom the compromise has been affected arc ostensibly office bearers or have claimed themselves to be office bearers to represent the Society. In these circumstances, I do not consider it fit and proper in these proceedings to hold inquiry as to whether the compromise has been arrived at with duly authorised persons and whether recording of the compromise is illegal and erroneous. So far as the judicial file is concerned, satisfaction of the decree remains recorded by the executing court. It will not be fit and proper to take further steps or to take any further proceedings in this matter. The petition for taking contempt of proceedings against the respondents accordingly and is dismissed.
(7) Before I part with this application, it may be mentioned that the members of the Society who are now in control of the petitioner Society had earlier applied to this Court for intervention but that application was rejected by this Court and thereafter the Society which is being represented by other group made application for substitution in place of the petitioner as rightly representing the society. That application is still pending but in the view that I had taken, it is not necessary to pass any order thereon.