PETITIONER R‘ES‘PONDENTS coNTEMNORs l,‘ . .mm%.,. .u VERSUS I IN 'I‘I-IE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATISGA BILASPUR @ Dr. (Smt.) Gulshan, W/o Late Dr. Anand Kumar Aggarwal, Aged about 52 years, R/o Sagar Nurshing Home, 01d Bus Stand, Korba (C.G.) Ajay Kumar Budiya, S/o Late Shyam Sunder Budhiya Resident of Korba [c.G} Vijay Kumar Budiya, S/o Late Shyam Sunder Budhiya R/o Power House Road, Korba [CG] Smt. Kavita Budhiya, W/o Shn' Vijay Kumar Budhiya R/o Main Road, Korba (C.G) Smt. Sanyogita Budhiya, W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Budhiya R/o Main Road, Korba (C.G) Sharif Mohammad, Tahsildar 8r, Executive Magistrate, Korba Tahsil 85 District Korba [C.G} t// CONTEMPT PETITION NOjr/ / k OF 2003 ’v;.‘;u H ‘ ' 3‘ CONTEMPT PETITION UNER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION ‘1?) & 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 AND SECTION 23 OF THE CHHATTISGARH j# ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT 1961 FOR DISOBEIENCE AND NON—COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATEDV13—3-2003 PASSED BY (LE JUSTICE SHRI .C.BHADOO IN CIVIL REVISION NO.583/2002. . . ‘ 1 i HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH § Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ. Contempt Petition No.45 OF 2003 Pétitioner Dr. (Smt.) Gulshan Vs. t Rgsnondentsl Ajay Kumar Budiya and Others Cbgemnors Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava. counsel for the petitioner. “a ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28m February, 2007) The petitioner in this contempt petition is one Dr. (Smt.) Guishan, W/o. Late Dr. Anand Kumar Aggarwal, who was the respondent in Civil Revision No.583 of 2002. She is the landlady of the respondents in this contempt petition. She had gone before the Rent Controlling Authority/ Sula Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, to pass an order directing ti‘e tenants to vacate 'and deliver the vacant possession of the non- residential premises which is in their occupation. The Rent Controlling Authority had passed an order dated 02.08.2002 granting the relief sought by the landlady. Aggrieved by that order, the tenants were before this Court in Civii Revision No.583 of 2002. This Court by its order dated 13-03-2003 rejected the Civil Revision and directed the tenants to vacate the non-residential premises and deiiver vacant possession of the same to the landlady. (2) ln this contempt petition it is alleged that the tenants have disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in Civii Revision No.583 of 2002. Therefore, a request is made to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the tenants and punish them A f0! the so caHed wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. ‘ (3) Admittediy, this Court has disposed of the Civil Revision on merits and granted some time to the tenants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the non-residential premises to the landlady. lf for any reason, the tenants have not complied with the directions and ordersJssued by this Court, in my opinion, the landlady has to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The contempt proceedings will lie only, if the tenants had given an undertaking before this Court and thereafter have violated the said undertaking wilfully and deliberately and not otherwise. In that view, cognizance of this petition need not be taken by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is rejected . Sd/- , Chief Justice @Git