- (1.) Heard leaned counsel for the Appellants.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge committed serious error of law by issuing direction as has been issued in para 15, i.e. in operative part of the impugned judgment dated 15.4.2010. The learned Single Judge granted two months' time to Appellants to vacate the suit premises inspite of the fact that the Appellants did not seek time. While granting time, the learned Single Judge also issued directions to the Appellants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondents within a period of two months and directed to pay mesne profit and in case of failure to do so, the landlord shall not only be entitled to execute the decree/order in accordance with the provisions of Rent Control Law but shall also be free to approach this Court under contempt jurisdiction.
(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants this gave liberty to the Respondents to initiate the contempt proceeding against the Appellants which otherwise they could not have initiate and could have only executed the decree/order of the Rent Tribunal. It is submitted that there was no occasion for the observation of the learned Single Judge that in addition to the execution of the decree, the Respondents will be free to approach this Court under contempt jurisdiction.;