Tarlok Singh Chauhan JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act') read with Rule 3(i)(ii) & (iii) and Rule 4(i)(ii) & (iii) of the H.P. High Court Contempt Rules, 1996, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for violating the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 25.05.2010.
2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the landlord and had sought eviction of the respondent under the provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Ex-parte eviction orders were passed on 05.06.2008. In execution, the parties entered into a compromise. Their statements were duly recorded and on the basis of the said compromise, the execution petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn being compromised.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent has flouted the conditions of the compromise and thereby committed contempt.
4. In reply filed by the respondent, a number of preliminary objections have been raised and thereafter on merits it is alleged that no case for contempt is made out as the petitioner himself had agreed for incorporation of a condition in the agreement that in case for any reason the premises are not vacated as agreed to by the respondent, then the petitioner shall after 31.05.2014 be entitled to ` 6,000/- per month for the use and occupation charges from the respondent as against the earlier rent of ` 1600/- per month.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
5. Section 2(b) of the Act defines civil contempt as meaning "willful disobedience to any judgment decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to Court".
6. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Court while passing the impugned order dated 25.05.2010 had infact added its mandate to the compromise. For this purpose, it is necessary to advert to not only the compromise entered into between the parties, but also their statements recorded on 25.05.2010 and thereafter to the order passed on the basis of such compromise.
7. A perusal of the application jointly filed by the parties for withdrawal of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure would reveal that the same contains the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may be allowed and decree may kindly be passed in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties after recording the satisfaction of the tenant in the interest of justice and in view of settlement arrived between the parties this execution petition may be dismissed as withdrawn."
8. The aforesaid application came up before the executing Court on 25.05.2010 on which date, firstly, the statement of the landlord-petitioner was recorded and thereafter the statement of the tenant-respondent was recorded. Though, the same are in Hindi, the translated version reads thus:-
"Statement of Sh. Ram Gopal Sood, S/o. Sh. Khushi Ram Sood, R/o. Gopal Building, near LIC Building, Sanjauli, Shimla.
On S.A.
25.5.2010.
It is stated that we, both the parties, have entered into a compromise. Agreement is Ex. PA, which I have heard and understood and admit the same as correct. I will be bound by the contents of the Agreement Ex. PA. My petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Ex. PA bears my signatures which is marked as A and encircled with red ink.
Sd/- Ram Gopal Sood
RO & AC.
Sd/-
Rent Controller,
Court No. 2, Shimla.
Statement of........