A.No.2782 of 2008 in C.S.No.53 of 2004 P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. The plaintiff in the civil suit is the applicant herein. The civil suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an alleged contract for sale dated 28.11.2003 in respect of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the applicant's/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for declaration that two sale deeds dated 28.11.2003 and 02.12.2003 executed by the respondents 1 to 4 in favour of the 5th respondent are invalid, non-est, sham and nominal and not binding upon the applicant/plaintiff. 2. Pending disposal of the suit, the applicant had filed an application in O.A.No.49 of 2004 praying for an injunction against the respondents, particularly against the 5th respondent, restraining them from interfering with the applicant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property forming the subject matter of the suit. This Court by order dated 27.01.2004 granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents or anybody claiming under them from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property forming the subject matter of the suit until further orders. 3. The present application in A.No.2782 of 2008 has been filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A r/w Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules for punishing the respondents for the alleged disobedience and violation of the order of injunction dated 27.01.2004 made in O.A.No.49 of 2004 in C.S.No.53 of 2004. 4. The case of the petitioner, as revealed from the affidavit filed in support of the present application in A.No.2782 of 2008, is as follows:- M/s.Navanethaam Traders, the applicant/plaintiff is a partnership Firm, represented by its Managing Partner M.Ganesan. It is doing the business of dealing in coir mattresses, fabric pillows, baby beds and other allied commercial articles etc., in Puducherry. For running a retail shop-cum- Office premises, they got the non residential portion bearing Door No.3, Second Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20 on lease from its erstwhile owners viz., respondents 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4, on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance. The lease was initially fixed for a period of three years with a stipulation for renewal for a further period on condition to be agreed upon. The shop rented out to the applicant/plaintiff measures an extent of about 510 sq.ft. A commercial portion measuring an area of 200 sq.ft., adjacent to the applicant's shop was occupied by one Manickam. Though, the applicant/plaintiff took possession as a tenant in respect of the shop portion measuring 510 sq.ft., later on the respondents 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4 entered into an agreement with the applicant/plaintiff for selling the property including the portion in occupation of said Manickam with a total extend of about 710 sq.ft., for a price of Rs.15,00,000/-. It was agreed that the amount paid as rental advance viz., Rs.2,00,000/- would be taken as Earnest Money Deposit and the sale deed should be executed, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-. As there was a litigation regarding the portion in occupation of Manickam and the respondents 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4 were not in a position to give vacant possession of the entire property, the sale would not be completed. Later on, the respondents 1 to 4/ defendants 1 to 4 during the period of October- November,2003 expressed their desire to sell the property inclusive of the portion in the occupation of the above said Manickam in "as-is-where-is" condition and requested the applicant/plaintiff to complete the transaction on or before 15.12.2003. However, when the applicant/plaintiff had applied for Encumbrance Certificate, the respondents 1 to 4 sent a communication dated 03.12.2003 stating that they have sold the suit property in favour of the 5th respondent/5th defendant by two sale deeds dated 28.11.2003 and 02.12.2003 and registered as documents Nos.2543 and 2585 of 2003 respectively in the Office of Sub Registrar, Adyar, Chennai for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,69,670/-. Under such circumstances, the applicant/plaintiff filed the above said suit for the relief indicated supra. 5. An Application in A.No.49 of 2004 in C.S.No.53 of 2004 was also filed for the relief of interim injunction as indicated above in which an order of ad-interim injunction passed on 27.01.2004 restraining the respondents not to disturb the possession of the applicant/plaintiff. Without any reference to the said order dated 27.01.2004, the 5th respondent/5th defendant, with the help of rowdy elements and musclemen demolished a portion of the property forming the subject matter of the order of injunction made in O.A.No.49 of 2004. A police complaint was given on 05.05.2008. The said act of demolition of a portion of the suit property amounted to an act of disobedience to the order of injunction granted by this Court and hence the respondents, especially the 5th respondent, should be punished for such violation under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. 6. The Respondent's case is as follows:- The 4th respondent has filed a counter on behalf of the respondent 1 to 4 denying the averments made in the application to the effect that the initial period of lease was three years. They have contended that it was only for a period of 11 months and that the renewal of lease thereafter was subject to mutual agreement. The further averments found in the affidavit of the applicant to the effect that there was an agreement to sell the property for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the applicant/plaintiff and that the respondents 1 to 4 agreed to treat the rental advance of Rs.2,00,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit was also denied. On the other hand they have contended that there was a sale agreement between the respondents 1 to 4 and 5th respondent for selling the property to the 5th respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.8,15,000/- was paid on various dates and that subsequently, as the balance sale consideration was also paid, two sale deeds dated 28.11.2003 and 02.12.2003 were executed in favour of the 5th respondent/5th defendant. They have also contended that since they have sold the property to the 5th respondent, the allegations regarding any act subsequent to the dates of sale made in the affidavit filed in support of the application are no way connected with the respondents 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4, that they have not committed any act of violating the interim order that they have properly intimated the applicant regarding the sale made in favour of the 5th respondent and that hence the present application against the respondents 1 to 4 should be dismissed. 7. The 5th respondent filed a counter denying the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of the application and making averments similar to those found in the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent. In addition to that, the 5th respondent also contended that the sale agreement with the respondents 1 to 4 was even anterior to the lease created in favour of the applicant/plaintiff and that the sale made in his favour was pursuant to the said agreement. It was also contended that in the RCOP.No.1909 of 2007 instituted against the above said Manickam who simply kept the premises under lock and key without using the same for commercial purpose on the file of the Small Causes Court on the ground of non-user, the said tenant come forwarded to hand over the vacant possession of the said premises, which was recorded by the learned Rent Controller and that thereafter when the 5th respondent opened the said portion found that the ceiling of the said portion had been damaged that therefore, the three phase connection was surrendered and the electricity supply was disconnected for the said portion and that while removing the debris which had fallen from the ceiling, the petitioner raised objection and prevented the servants of the 5th respondent. It is the further contention of the 5th respondent that the order of this Court granting injunction was not at all violated by this respondent. 8. The point that arise for consideration in this application is:- "Whether the respondents, especially the 5th respondent, are guilty of willful disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 27.01.2004 made in O.A.No.49 of 2004 and hence liable to be punished?" 9. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Thiagarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr.S.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent were heard, the relevant documents were also perused and this Court paid it anxious considerations to the same. 10. Admittedly, the respondents 1 to 4 were the original owners of the non residential portions consisting of two shops bearing Door No.3, Second Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20 and the total extent of the two shop portion is about 710 sq.ft. One of the said portion measuring 510 sq.ft., was leased out by the respondents 1 to 4 to the applicant/plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- under a lease deed dated 16.05.2002, which has been produced as document No.4 along with the plaint. Though the applicant/plaintiff would claim that subsequently, he entered into an agreement with the respondents 1 to 4 for the purchase of entire suit property for sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and that it was agreed between the parties that the rental advance of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by him shall be adjusted as Earnest Money Deposit for the said agreement, the applicant/plaintiff has not chosen to produce any such agreement. Presumably the applicant/plaintiff relies on an oral agreement for sale. 11. On the other hand the respondents/defendants have categorically denied having entered into any such agreement for sale either written or oral with the applicant/plaintiff. Since, the applicant/plaintiff was admittedly the lessee in respect of the portion of the suit property being a shop portion measuring 510 sq.ft., after the lapse of lease period he would have automatically become a statutory tenant entitled to the protection of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act,1960. In view of the same he is entitled to the statutory protection from being evicted without adopting due process of law. Only in such view, this Court chose to pass an order of ad- interim injunction not to interfere with his possession. Admittedly, the applicant/plaintiff was not in a possession of the other non residential portion, extending about 200 sq.ft. and the same was in possession of another tenant by name Manickam. It is not the case of the applicant/plaintiff that the other portion which was in possession of the said tenant Manickam, later on came into his possession. On the other hand RCOP.No.1909 of 2007 seems to have been filed in which the said Manickam appeared before the Rent Controller handed over possession to the 5th respondent who had got the property conveyed in his name by then. The same was also recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the present contention of the applicant that is possession in respect of the suit property was sought to be interfered with shall not be applicable to the said portion, which was in the possession of the said Manickam. In other words, the order restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the applicant/plaintiff should be confined to the portion which is admittedly in the occupation of the applicant/plaintiff measuring 510 sq.ft. It is not the case of the applicant that his possession in the said portion was interfered with or any attempt was made to evict him forcibly from the said portion. On the other hand, it is the contention of the applicant/plaintiff that after having obtained possession of the other portion measuring 200 sq.ft. from Manickam, the 5th respondent demolished the roof of the said portion and thereby caused insteability to the portion in the occupation of the applicant/plaintiff. 12. The 5th respondent would contend that no demolition was carried out as contended by the applicant, that due to non user and since the said Manickam kept the said portion under the locked without use, the roof portion got damaged and collapsed and that the same was noticed by the 5th respondent when he opened the door after the symbolic delivery was recorded by the learned Rent Controller. It is the further contention of the 5th respondent he simply removed the debris caused by the collapse of the roof. It is the clear case of the 5th respondent that he has not disobeyed or violated the injunction order granted by this Court. 13. Though, the applicant might have chosen to produce copies of the complaint given to the police and the complaints given by the applicant/plaintiff to Corporation of Chennai and other Officials, there is an allegation that the 5th respondent illegally demolished a portion of the suit property and tried to construct a new building. But they are bereft particulars, regarding the date on which such alleged demolition was made. In none of the documents produced in the typed set of papers, the applicant has stated that the date on which the alleged demolition took place. 14. The learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of this Court to a portion in the deposition made by the fifth respondent / fifth defendant before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 860 of 2007 wherein it has been recorded as if he admitted demolition of the portion, which was previously in the occupation of Manickam on 05.5.2008 and that the applicant gave complaints to the Police and other authorities complaining that such an act was committed despite the fact that there was an order of injunction against him. However, it is obvious that the order of injunction granted in favour of the applicant is not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It has been clarified supra that in view of the admission of the applicant that the said portion, which is said to have been demolished by the fifth respondent / fifth defendant, was not in possession of the applicant, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the applicant that the said demolition of the other portion would amount to interference with the possession of the applicant in respect of the portion leased out to him and thus would amount to violation of the order passed by this Court. It is not the clear cut case of the applicant that the demolition of the adjacent portion has caused instability to the portion in the occupation of the applicant. In any event, if such is the position, the applicant can seek necessary direction against the fifth respondent / fifth defendant to do the repairs to nullify the damage caused, if any, because of the demolition or to permit him to carry out the repair works. In view of the said right available to the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has not substantiated his contention that the respondents, more particularly, fifth respondent has committed any act of disobedience or violation of the order of this Court dated 27.01.2004 made in O.A. No. 49 of 2004 in C.S. No. 53 of 2004. 15. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has not clearly established that any of the respondents, especially the 5th respondent, committed any act of disobedience or violation of the order of injunction granted by this Court in its order dated 27.01.2004 made in O.A.No.49 of 2004. An application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC should be strictly construed and unless such act of violation strictly proved strictly no order of imposing punishment could be passed. 16. For the above reasons, this court comes to the conclusion that the application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. No costs. 22.12.2008 rrg P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. rrg Pre delivery Draft Order in A.No.2782 of 2008 in C.S.No.53 of 2004 22.12.2008