SMT. RAM PYARI & ORS.versusJAGDISH LAL

                  RAM PYARI v. JAGDISH [MOHAN, J.]                            119

                  session of the suit premises to the respondent on or before        A
                  three months from today.

             2.   That the petitioner will pay to respondent arrears of rent, if
                  any, within one month from today.

             3. That the petitioner will pay to respondent future compensa- B
                  tion for use and occupation of the suit premises month by
                  month before the iOth day of every month.

             4.   That the petitioner will not induct any other person in the suit
                  premises.
                                                                                     c
            The Court further directed that in defaultof compliance with any
            one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as
            required within ~e stipulated time, the decree shall become exe-
            cutable forthwith;"

        For the disobedience of the above order, in neither filing the undertaking D
nor paying the rent and failure to hand over the possession, the present petition
fpr contempt has been preferred. Notice was ordered on the contempt petition ·
ol;t 6th May, 1991 returnable on 24,7.91.
      The counter affidavit has been filed inter-alia contending that the
remedy of the applicant in the contempt petition (respondent in the special E
leave petition) would be to execute the decree and not come by way of
contempt. Besides, an order under the U.P.Public Premises Act had been
passed against the applicant. Therefore, the owner of the premises is Municipal
Board of Shahjananpur. Hence the applicant has no locus standi to maintain the
petiti~n.

      Before us the same arguments as raised in the counter are reiterated.
                                                                                     F
      '.fhe short question,. therefore, is whether the respondent is guilty of
contempt of court We have already extracted the order passed by this Court
on February 17, 1986. No doubt there is no violation of any specific direction
contained in that order. Nevertheless we cannot agree with the respondent that
the remedy will be only to execute the decree for eviction. He was granted three G
months' time on condition that he will file an undertaking and pay the arrears
of rent as well as future compensation. In so far as he derived specific
advantages under the order, we are of the view, the proper course will be to
issue such directions as were issued in an identical case reported in Firm
Ganpat RamRajkumar v. KaluRam and Others,A.I.R. 1989 SC 2285. It was
observed at page 2288 as under :                                                 H·
    120             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A               "This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and granted time
                of six months on the plea that the petitioner firm would file an
                undertaking. All this could not have happened if the present
                plaintiffs in the Narnaul suit had not consented or allowed it to be
                passed or stood by. It is difficult to accept the position that they did
                not know. In the facts of the case. we are of the opinion that they
B               deliberately did not object to this Court passing the order and
                thereby allowed the firm to mislead this Court. They are, therefore,
                bound to see that the order of this Court is complied with. Though
                contempt is a serious matter and it interferes with the right of those
                who are found guilty of contempt, no court should allow any party
                to mislead the court and thereby frustrate its order. In the aforesaid
c               view of the matter. we are of the opinion that though perhaps the
                respondents could not be found guilty of violating any undertaking
                as there was none, in the facts and circumstances of the case. this
                court should ensure compliance with its order dated 24th August.
                1987 and see that vacant and peaceful possession is given to the
                applicant in the interest of justice...
D
                "In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct the learned Sr. Sub-
                Judge, Narnaul (Haryana) to cause deliver up the vacant posses-
                sion of the shop situated at Sabji Mandi. Namaul. Distt. Mohinder-
                garh (Haryana). if necessary with the help of police forthwith. The
                learned Sr. Sub-Judge. Narnaul is also directed tO report compli-
E               ance immediately."

           Similar direction in the present case would meet the ends of justice.
    Therefore. we hereby direct learned Additional Munsif of Shahjahanpur to
    cause delivery of vacant possession of the Shop No. 289 situate in Bazar Ba- ·
    hadurganj, Shahjahanpur und~r City Board Shahjahanpur to the applicants. if
F
    necessary. with the help of police on or before 15th December, 1991. The
    learned Munsif is also directed to report compliance immediately. We make it
    clear that this order will not prevent or prejudice the applicants from taking any
    steps for recovery of rent and mesne profits as they are entitled to in accordance
    with law. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

    T.N.A.                                                       Petition disposed of.