COCP No.1061 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1061 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.7.2009 Dharam Dev Verma ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sukhdev Kumar ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Syan, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.13554-CII of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1061 of 2008 As per averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent for his eviction from the shop owned by him. The said application was accepted by the Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib vide his order dated 18.3.1986. Appeal against the aforesaid eviction order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.11.1986. Civil Revision No. 659 of 1987 was disposed of by this Court on 23.3.2005. The order reads as under; “Mr. J.S. Chaudhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner states at the outset that both the authorities below have concurrently held that the shop in question had been let out for running the business and that the COCP No.1061 of 2008 2 same was being used as a godown. The learned senior counsel, in view of the aforesaid finding very fairly states that the present Revision Petition may be dismissed as not pressed but a reasonable time be given to the tenant-petitioner to make alternative arrangement. Mr. J.P.S. Chadha, learned counsel appearing for the landlord, accepts the offer of the tenant- petitioner and has very fairly stated that the landlords would have no objection if one year time is granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate the premises. In view of the agreement of the parties as aforesaid, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, the tenant- petitioner shall hand over the possession of the tenanted premises on or before May 31, 2006. The tenant-petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller within a period of one month from today to the effect that he will hand over the possession of the demised premises to the landlord-respondents within the aforesaid period i.e upto May 31, 2006. The tenant-petitioner shall also deposit all the arrears of rent. If any, and the future rent upto May 31, 2006 before the learned Rent Controller within the aforesaid period of one month. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.” COCP No.1061 of 2008 3 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has failed to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to him on or before 31st May, 2006 as per aforesaid order and thus, has committed the contempt as defined under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court , the respondent is present in person and is duly represented by his counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this contempt petition. Undisputedly, the respondent had not filed any undertaking before the Rent Controller to the effect that he will hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before 31.5.2006. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had already filed execution of the aforesaid eviction order against the respondent. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an execution application for execution of the eviction order against the respondent, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Even otherwise, there is no undertaking given by the respondent as per the order dated 23.3.2005 which was breached by the respondent. No merit. Dismissed. Rule discharged. July 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE