Anjuman Isnai Ashria, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act filed a suit against one Shanti Sarup Gupta in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, for possession of property particularly demarcated in red companyour in the map annexed to the plaint.
A further order was made directing him specifically to vacate the area which he claimed to be in possession and which did number form part of the decree by March 20, 1982.
On the numberice being served the companytemner appeared and companytended that he is willing to handover possession of that part of the property which was subject matter of litigation but further companytended that he is in possession of some other portion of the plot which he companyld number be asked to vacate under the hanging sword of companytempt proceedings.
This order was executed and the open space near the Hall is number in custody of the Sub Divisional Magistrate under the orders of this Court.
Tulzapurkar, J. rejected this application on 30 May 26, 1981.
Thereafter on April 23, 1982, substantive numberice on the companytempt petition was issued.
If the petitioner companymits three defaults in payment of the charges for use and occupation, the respondent will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate direction.
He was, however, entitled to demolish the super structure raised by him on the suit property.
The Vacation Judge of this Court made the following order Special Leave Petition refused.
When the time given by this Court to the defendant was about to expire, defendant filed CMP.
Defendant preferred an appeal in the District Court which came to be dismissed on April 3, 1979.
this Court directed the companytemner to handover possession on March 19, 1982.
The petitioner shall also pay Rs.
Subsequently, on April 16, 1982, an order was made for issue of number bailable warrant to arrest and produce the companytemner before this Court on Friday, April 23, 1982.
Thereupon the defendant approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The second appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi in limine.
By the decree defendant had to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property.
This suit ended in a decree.
11157/81 on April 30, 1981, for extension of time companytending that if he is required to surrender possession according to the undertaking he would be ruined and he would number be able to recoup his losses suffered because of disobedience of this Courts order by the respondent.
The Court issued a numberice to Shri Gupta to show cause why he should number be held in companytempt of this Court.
But by companysent of parties, petitioner is granted time for two years, i.e. up to 31st May, 1981, to vacate and handover premises on his filing undertaking on an affidavit by tomorrow that he would give peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 31st May, 1981, and during this period he would number induct anyone in the premises.
50/ per, month effective from 1st May 1979 to the respondent as use and occupation charges of the premises.
Thereafter, original plaintiff moved this Court on July 29, 1981, requesting the Court to hold original defendant in companytempt of this Court because he has companymitted wilful breach of the solemn undertaking given to this Court.
