1 CP-228-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 228 OF 2008 Shri Ajitkumar Devkumarsingh Kasliwal ... Petitioner vs. Shri Shrenik Jayantilal Jain & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.A.Thorat,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.R.D.Soni, i/b. Lalit Jain,Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Contempt Petition is filed by the original appellant in A.O.No. 159 of 2006 with C.A. No.212 of 2006. In that appeal, on 3.3.2006, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo till next date. The order of status quo was directed to be continued till disposal of the Appeal as per the order dated 27.7.2006. The Appeal is still pending and therefore that order is in force. According to the petitioner, the respondent has committed contempt of the Court by transferring tenancies in respect of two tenements after the previous tenants surrendered the tenancies. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply 2 CP-228-08.sxw denying that they have committed contempt of the Court by transferring the two tenancies in favour of the new tenants after the previous tenants surrendered. They have contended in para 5 (xxvii) that the petitioner himself has transferred the tenancy in respect of 7 properties in favour of the persons named therein. It appears that the petitioner also transferred the tenancies in respect of certain other properties after the previous tenants had vacated. Similarly, the respondent has also transferred tenancies in respect of two tenements after the previous tenants vacated. In fact, it is not the case of the petitioner that these two tenements were lying vacant on the date when the status quo order was passed and, therefore, they were expected to remain vacant. They were already in occupation of some tenants. Merely because after the previous tenant vacated, the new tenants are brought in. The status of the property is not changed. It appears that the petitioner also understood the order in the same sense and the petitioner himself had transferred 7 tenancies in respect of different properties which are also the subject matter of the dispute. Therefore, I find that no substance in the contempt petition. 3. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)