RAMKRISHAN Vs. MAHILA JAMUNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are of the view that at this stage no case for making any order against respondent No.4 under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out. Our attention is drawn to the statement made by applicant himself in para 7 of the instant petition, wherein the relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 87 of 1981 is extracted. It is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that this Court had made a direction for the matter to be disposed of in terms of section 18 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in so far as the concerned defendant (herein the petitioner) to be rein ducted into the reconstructed premises.

(2.) TRUE , the premises admittedly have been reconstructed and it is also not denied that some shops have been let out. However, the question that still remains to be determined is of the petitioner being reinducted under the provisions of section 18 of the Act, for which decision has to be rendered in pending execution proceedings.

(3.) IN these circumstances, we are making a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of the matter finally within 2 months and if the concerned Court finds that the landlord is not cooperating the proceedings may be taken ex parte and even order for cost, may be passed against the landlord respondent