IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.06.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.478 of 2008 and Sub Application No.111 of 208 K.Saravanakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1) Sheela 2) Santhi 3) Appunu 4) Ammulu ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceeding for committing grave contempt in not obeying the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in C.R.P.(NPD) No.2599 of 2004 dated 03.04.2007 and willfully floating the order. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan O R D E R Heard the submissions made by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Records available were also perused. 2. The landlord in whose favour the eviction order was passed, after successfully resisting the RCA and the CRP, filed an execution petition to execute the order of eviction. However, the judgment debtors preferred an Execution Application before the Rent Controller (executing court) for the stay of the eviction order pending disposal of a suit filed to establish their title in respect of the property concerned in both the suit and the RCOP. 3. The executing court chose to grant an order of stay staying the execution of the eviction order passed in the RCOP and confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional fora. The said order was challenged before this court in C.R.P.(NPD).No.2599 of 2004. This court by order dated 03.04.2007 passed the following order: " 21. On a careful consideration of the reasons stated by both sides and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to pass the following order. 1) The respondents are directed to deposit the arrears of rent of a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the credit of O.S.No.365 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vellore within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2) The respondents are also directed to deposit further arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.35,600/- (Rupees thirty five thousand and six hundred only) from 01.06.1992 to 31.03.2997 for 178 months to the credit of O.S.No.365 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vellore within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3) Since the dispute relating to the title of the sale deed which was executed by Radhakrishnan in favour of the revision petitioner has to be decided at the conclusion of the trial, taking into consideration all those aspects, this court directs the Additional District Munsif to dispose of the said suit which is pending before the said court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is further directed that both parties must be given reasonable opportunity to put forth their case before the said court. 22. With the above said directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs." 4. The present contempt petition has been filed complaining that the said direction issued by this court directing the respondents to deposit the arrears of rent has not been complied with. Alleging willful disobedience to the order of this court, the petitioner herein has prayed that the respondents should be tried and punished for contempt. 5. The directions incorporated in the order of this court dated 03.04.2007 was passed in a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of stay granted in an Execution Application, namely E.A.No.37 of 2004 in E.P.No.94 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Vellore. The said execution petition was filed for executing the order of eviction. The order impugned in the CRP was an order granting stay of execution of the eviction order. If the directions issued by this court in the CRP is considered in the said background, it shall be obvious that the said direction could not be an absolute direction but only a conditional direction for continuing the order of stay granted in the Execution Application. The necessary corollary is that the non-compliance of the conditional direction shall result in the stay order being vacated. Therefore, the present petition for contempt, according to the considered view of this court, is a misconceived one. Hence this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. For all the reasons stated above, this contempt petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Sub Application is also closed. However, it is clarified that in case of any difficulty in satisfying the executing court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move for a specific order stating that the Order of stay stands vacated because of the non-compliance of the conditional direction regarding deposit of rent. 18.06.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes asr P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. ASR Contempt Petition No.478 of 2008 and Sub. Appln.No.111 of 2008 DATED : 18.06.2008