Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs on Tenant for Wilful Breach of Undertaking to Vacate Premises; Says Delayed Compliance Does Not Purge Contempt
Case Name: Kamlesh Rani vs. Sanjeev Kumar
Date of Judgment: 03 December 2025
Citation: COCP-2736-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held the respondent-tenant guilty of wilful disobedience of a binding undertaking to vacate the premises by 30 April 2023 and imposed costs of ₹2,00,000, holding that handing over possession more than two years late only after initiation of contempt proceedings did not absolve the contemptuous conduct.
Summary: The petitioner alleged violation of this Court’s 19 January 2023 order directing the tenant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession by 30 April 2023. That order had been passed on the strength of a categorical undertaking given by the tenant during the hearing of his earlier civil revision. Despite this commitment, the tenant remained in possession until 5 September 2025. The Court noted from the record (pp. 1–2) that the order had attained finality, and that the tenant’s knowledge of the direction was unquestionable because the undertaking originated from him.
The Court found that all elements of civil contempt were satisfied—existence of a binding order, admitted knowledge and deliberate non-compliance. It rejected the respondent’s attempt to rely on eventual compliance, holding that late surrender after prolonged defiance does not erase willful breach. Citing the jurisprudence on wilfulness reproduced in the judgment, including Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, the Court reiterated that calculated, intentional disobedience undermines the authority of the Court and warrants strict action. The Court emphasised that the petitioner had been forced to initiate contempt proceedings merely to enforce an order already supported by an undertaking, a fact that reflected poorly on the contemnor’s respect for judicial authority.
Decision: The Court imposed ₹2,00,000 as costs on the respondent, to be paid to the petitioner within two months, holding that exemplary costs were necessary to convey that undertakings to the Court must be honoured punctually. The contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.