HC imposes Rs 2 lakh cost on tenant for ‘wilful default’ after nearly 2-year delay in vacating premises

Making it clear that undertakings furnished before the court are to be “honoured strictly” and within the assured timeframe, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed Rs 2 lakh cost on a tenant in Kaithal for “wilful default and delayed compliance” of an undertaking to vacate a property. Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that the tenant deliberately retained possession for almost two years beyond the committed date, compelling the landlord to approach the court through a contempt petition.

The Bench was hearing a contempt petition alleging deliberate and wilful disobedience of an order dated January 19, 2023, whereby the tenant had agreed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises by April 30, 2023. It was, however, admitted before the court that possession was actually handed over only on September 5.

Holding the delay contemptuous, Justice Sharma observed that the undertaking was categorical and formed the very basis of the earlier order. The court noted that the compliance was made only on September 5 after an inordinate delay of nearly two years “beyond the period fixed by this court.”

Justice Sharma asserted all necessary ingredients of civil contempt stood satisfied. “There is a clear and unequivocal order dated January 19, 2023, directing delivery of vacant possession by April 30, 2023. The order is founded upon an express undertaking given by the respondent-tenant in court. Hence, knowledge is implicit and admitted.”

The Bench observed that the tenant – despite furnishing the undertaking – “continued in occupation” without placing any material to justify inability to comply within time. The court categorically rejected any notion that belated compliance could wipe out earlier misconduct.

Justice Sharma asserted: “The eventual handing over of possession does not purge the contempt, when compliance comes only after years of disregard and only when compelled through contempt petition. The petitioner had to run from pillar to post, compelled to initiate the present proceedings merely to enforce what was already solemnly undertaken. Such conduct displays casualness toward the majesty of law and undermines faith in judicial orders.”

The court observed that tenant’s conduct revealed a calculated decision to retain possession in defiance of the court’s mandate and his own solemn assurance to the court. Admonishing the conduct, Justice Sharma asserted: “This court cannot remain a silent spectator to such blatant disregard of its authority. The sequence of events shocks the conscience of this Court and warrants imposition of exemplary costs so as to send a strong message that undertakings given to the court are to be honoured strictly and within time”.

Before parting with the order, Justice Sharma imposed the cost after taking into consideration the discussion on law and circumstances, the wilful default and “delayed compliance attributable solely to the respondent”. The amount was directed to be paid to the petitioner within two months.