https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182351 The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for not complying with an undertaking to vacate premises and misleading the court. He was fined Rs. 500 and ordered to deliver vacant possession. The court allowed the execution of the eviction decree against all persons in possession, including the second respondent, who claimed protection under rent control laws but was not granted interim relief. The District Magistrate was directed to evict all occupants, including the second respondent, and give possession to the petitioner. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 16:56:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182351 The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for not complying with an undertaking to vacate premises and misleading the court. He was fined Rs. 500 and ordered to deliver vacant possession. The court allowed the execution of the eviction decree against all persons in possession, including the second respondent, who claimed protection under rent control laws but was not granted interim relief. The District Magistrate was directed to evict all occupants, including the second respondent, and give possession to the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182351