Rajesh Singh and Another vs Prithviraj Singh @ Deepu Singh

Samudrala Govinda Rajulu, J.—By order dated 31.10.2011, the respondent was granted time of six months for vacating the schedule premises on condition of filing undertaking affidavit before the Rent Controller to vacate the premisis by six months. It is a fact that the respondent herein filed undertaking affidavit before the Rent Controller to the above effect; and it is a fact that in spite of filing the said undertaking affidavit before the Rent Controller in pursuance of orders of this Court, the respondent has not vacated the premisis. Now the respondent has got audacity to contend that there is another claimant who is claiming possession of the schedule premisis. It is evident that the respondent who is still squatting in the schedule premisis even in the year 2013 is playing double game to squat on the suit premises. It is nothing but outrageous violation of direction of this Court and undertaking given by the respondent in pursuance of orders of this Court. The fact that the complainant filed execution petition before the executing Court cannot prevent him from filing this contempt petition for which there is factual and legal basis. In the result, the contempt case is allowed, finding the respondent guilty and sentencing him to civil imprisonment for two months, subject to the complainants paying necessary batta. The respondent who is present in person in Court is taken into custody. In case the respondent is willing to handover the premisis by 5:30 p.m. today to the complainants, he shall be released.

N.B.:--The Hon''ble Court directed to release the sole respondent vide U.S.R. No. 2440/2013 dated 29-7-2013.