Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS.
v. ARUN KUMAR KEDIA AND ANR. Contempt Petition (C) No. 139 of 2011 IN Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004
MAY 13, 2011
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Rent control and eviction:
Eviction order - Tenant's appeal dismissed by Supreme Court - Tenant granted nine months time from the date of dismissal of appeal to vacate the tenanted premises - Tenant D did not vacate the tenanted premises even after the period granted - Contempt petition - Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition directing eviction of tenant by police force - Contempt of Court.
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition E No. 139 of 2011. h Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.3.2004 of the High Court Calcutta in F.A.No. 23 of 2000. Jaideep Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania for the Appellant
Ramesh Singh (for O.P. Khaitan & Co) for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered
·I
AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS. v. ARUN KUMAR KEDIA AND ANR.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this cas~. the tenant's appeal being Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004 was dismissed by this Court by our order dated November 04, 2009 and we gave the tenant nine months' time from that date to vacate the premises in question. Review Petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed on March 25, 2010. We are informed that the tenant has not vacated the premises in question. Hence, this contempt petition. Accordingly, we direct that the tenant-Anderson Wright & Co. shall be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force. The Contempt Petition is disposed of.
D.G.
Contempt Petition disposed of.
c
I