: 1 : conp-3-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 835 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO. 800 OF 2004 Smt. Nandinibai Brijmohan Nemani (Nandini Agarwal) & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Anupam Brijmohan Nemani & Ors. .. Respondents/ Contemnors ......... Mr. J. Reis i/by Yadunath Chaudhari for the petitioners ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. According to petitioners, after certain tenaments were vacated by the respective defendants, the contemnor have created new tenancy. I have perused the prayer clause (a) of Motion No.835 of 2005. Reading prayer clause (a) as of today, it is difficult to accept that the creation of a new tenancy was prohibited in terms of reliefs granted in favour of the plaintiffs. If the tenants vacate the premises, it will not be proper for the plaintiffs to keep the tenament vacant for all time to come till the disposal of the petition. If the new tenancy is created that would not : 2 : conp-3-10=.sxw fall within the ambit of prayer clause (a). As of today, if new tenancy is created that by itself will not violate the order in terms of prayer clause (a). Hence, this contempt petition is not maintainable as no prima-facie case is made out. If the plaintiffs want that defendants should not create new tenancy in the event of tenament falling vacant, they are free to take out fresh motion or seek clarification of the order which is passed. Contempt Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)