IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.689 of 2011 Arya Samaj through Rajballabh Prasad Arya, son of Bibhishan Prasad, Secretary, Arya Samaj Mandir, P.S. Chhatauni, District-East Champaran. ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. Prakash Kumar Chaurasiya, son of Yadunath Chaurasiya, resident of Village-Basmanpur, P.S. Motihari Moffassil, District- East Champaran, at present residing at Mohalla-Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Chhatauni, Post Office-Motihari, District- East Champaran. 2. The State of Bihar through Sub-ordinate Judge III, East Champaran, Motihari ---- Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 6. 11.11.2011 Heard Mr. D. K. Tandon for the petitioner, Mr. Khurshid Alam for opposite party no.1, and Mr. Ansuman Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.1. This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, has been filed by the opposite party of C. R. No. 973 of 2004, being the decree-holder in a suit for eviction on the ground of expiry of the period of lease, which was dismissed by judgment dated 11.10.2010. The judgment-debtor, the petitioner in the civil revision application and the contemner in the present proceeding, was directed to vacate the premises in question on or before 30.9.2011, after paying up-to date rent of the premises in question. 2 We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner herein had instituted the suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of expiry of the period of lease which was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment, the tenant preferred the aforesaid civil revision application in this Court which was dismissed by the judgment in question. He was directed to vacate the premises on or before 30.9.2011, along with up-to-date rent. The judgment-debtor did not comply with the order leading to the present contempt application. In spite of adequate opportunity to the judgment-debtor, the order in question was not complied with. Consequently, by order dated 28.9.2011, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against opposite party no.1. He appeared on 24.10.2011, and handed over vacant possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder, but did not pay up-to- date rent. He has today again been produced from custody. Learned counsel for the judgment-debtor hands over demand draft no. 205215, dated 9.11.2011, for Rs.4,550/- towards payment of arrears of rent to the learned counsel for the petitioner ( the decree-holder), 3 who expresses satisfaction for implementation of the judgment. We do not feel the necessity of pursuing this matter any further. In the result, this application is disposed of. The contemner is set at liberty. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)