(1.) This case was initiated on the complain of disobedience of the order of this Court passed in S.A. No. 66 of 2011 and breach of undertaking by the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 was the tenant and the petitioner was the landlord. The decree was passed in favour of the landlord and confirmed in appeal. The opposite party had preferred S.A. No. 66 of 2011. The said appeal was dismissed, but on the prayer of the opposite party that he needs some time for searching alternative accommodation and shifting his establishment as also on his undertaking to vacate the suit premises himself by 30th November, 2011, time was granted to the petitioner and the execution proceeding was stayed till 30th November, 2011.
(2.) When the opposite party did not vacate the premises by 30th November, 2011, the petitioner filed this case, complaining violation of the order of this Court. The opposite party was noticed. He had appeared and filed his reply, stating that he has delivered vacant possession of the suit premises. The petitioner controverted the same and stated that only half of the area of the suit premises was vacated and the opposite party is still occupying half of the suit premises. The order was, therefore, passed, directing the Court below to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner through the process of the Court.
(3.) Learned Court below, thereafter, issued process and ultimately with the help of police force, the vacant possession could be delivered to the petitioner-decree holder.