( 1 ) HEARD Sri. Mohd Ghulam Rasool, counsel representing the petitioner landlord and sri P. Venugopal, counsel representing the tenants.

( 2 ) THESE two contempt cases are filed by the landlord as against the respective tenants for non-compliance of the directions made by this Court in C. M. P. No. 523 of 2004 in C. R. P. No. 3332 of 2001 and in C. M. P. No. 547 of 2004 in C. R. P. No. 3520 of 2001 respectively. The said order reads as hereunder: "heard both sides. Tenant is directed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and agreed so far within one month from today. "

( 3 ) THE grievance of the landlord is that the direction issued by this Court had not been complied with and hence, the landlord is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience.

( 4 ) SRI. MOHD Ghulam Rasool the learned counsel representing the petitioner- landlord would contend that in the light of the definition of the civil contempt and criminal contempt under Section 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Act inasmuch as the positive direction had not been complied with this would fall under civil cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document