1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 346 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 346 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 346 OF 2007 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 289 OF 2007 RAMVRIKSHA KALIKA SHUKLA ... PETITIONER VERSUS SHRI BHOJRAJ BABU SHETTY & Anr. RESPONDENTS Shri Atul G. Gamle, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri d.A.Athwale, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 6th June, 2008. DATE: 6th June, 2008. DATE: 6th June, 2008. P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a landlord and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the tenants. The petitioner filed the suit for eviction which was dismissed and finally 2 the petitioner has filed Revision Application No.289 of 2007 wherein ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (d) was granted by order dated 18th June, 2007. As per that order, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Revision Application, the respondents were restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit premises. The petitioner filed this Contempt Petition on 14.9.2007 contending that the respondents have violated the said order by parting with possession in favour of one Bhushan Jadhav. According to the petitioner, he had also lodged a report with the Police about the same on 9.8.2007. In support of his contention, he filed certain photographs to show that Bhushan Jadhav had kept some bundles of sugarcane in the suit premises. The respondent No.2 - Sunder Shetty filed an affidavit-in-reply denying that the respondents had parted with possession of the suit premises. It is contended that Bhushan Jadhav used to run business of sugarcane juice. He is known to the respondents for a number of years. As the juice centre was under repairs, on his request and because of the cordial relations, he was allowed to keep some sugarcane bundles in the suit premises for a few days. He had kept only two bundles of sugarcane in the suit premises for a few days and as soon as his own juice centre was renovated, he had removed the said bundles and the suit premises are exclusively in possession of the respondent. 3 3. The factual position stated in the affidavit of the respondent No.2 is not seriously disputed by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the circumstances, it is impossible to hold that the respondents had parted with possession of the suit premises or created any third party interest in violation of the order passed by this Court. I find that no contempt of Court was committed. 4. In the result, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)