1984 (5) TMI 268 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an undertaking given by a party in court is the same as an undertaking given to the court.
2. Whether the incorporation of terms based on an undertaking in a court order converts those terms into an undertaking to the court.
3. Whether the Rent Control Tribunal qualifies as a 'court' under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. Whether the respondent gave an undertaking to surrender possession of the premises within 15 days of the decision of L.P.A. No. 102/69.
5. Whether the respondent is in contempt of court for not vacating the premises as per the undertaking.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Undertaking Given by a Party in Court vs. To the Court:
The court analyzed whether the respondent's statement to vacate the premises constituted an undertaking to the court. The respondent argued that the statement was merely a compromise between the parties and not an undertaking to the court. However, the court concluded that the statement made by the respondent in court, promising to vacate the premises within 15 days of the dismissal of L.P.A. No. 102/69, constituted a solemn promise or pledge to the court. The court held that such statements, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are understood to be undertakings to the court, enforceable through committal proceedings.

2. Incorporation of Terms in Court Order:
The court examined whether incorporating the terms of the undertaking into the court order converted those terms into an undertaking to the court. The court found that the respondent's promise to vacate the premises was adopted as part of the Tribunal's order, thus converting it into an undertaking to the court. The court emphasized that the statutory power to grant time for eviction was exercised based on the respondent's promise, making it a judicial act rather than a mere agreement between the parties.

3. Rent Control Tribunal as a 'Court':
The court addressed whether the Rent Control Tribunal qualifies as a 'court' under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court noted that the Tribunal possesses all the attributes of a court, including the power to decide disputes judicially, take evidence on oath, and render binding judgments. The Tribunal's powers, if not constituted, would be exercisable by ordinary courts. Therefore, the court concluded that the Rent Control Tribunal is a 'court' within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. Undertaking to Surrender Possession:
The court considered whether the respondent gave an undertaking to surrender possession of the premises within 15 days of the decision of L.P.A. No. 102/69. The court found that the respondent made a clear and express promise to the court to vacate the premises within the stipulated time. The court emphasized that the respondent's statement was not merely an agreement with the petitioner but a solemn promise to the court, which was incorporated into the Tribunal's order.

5. Contempt of Court:
The court evaluated whether the respondent's failure to vacate the premises constituted contempt of court. The court determined that the respondent's willful breach of the undertaking given to the court amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court noted that the respondent expressed no regret or apology for the breach and refused to surrender possession even after being given multiple opportunities. Consequently, the court held the respondent guilty of contempt of court and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000. Additionally, the court directed that if the respondent failed to vacate the premises within 15 days, he would be detained in civil prison for one month.

Conclusion:
The judgment comprehensively addressed the issues of whether an undertaking given in court is equivalent to one given to the court, the conversion of terms into an undertaking through incorporation in a court order, the status of the Rent Control Tribunal as a 'court,' and the respondent's contempt of court for breaching the undertaking. The court concluded that the respondent's statement constituted an undertaking to the court, and his failure to comply resulted in a finding of contempt, leading to a fine and potential imprisonment.