A contractor has no right to remain in the property after termination of the contract by the owner.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 7th February 1991 passed on the application filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendant by means of an ad interim injunction from resisting and obstructing the entry of the plaintiff in property No. 16. Amrita Shergill Marg. New Delhi and also restraining the defendant from entering upon the same. The learned Judge granted the plaintiff s application and the defendants were directed to remove themselves from the property in question during the pendency of the suit and were further restrained from resisting or obstructing entry of the plaintiff of any of the officers or others all on behalf thereto. The learned Judge also gave some directions as to how the order passed on the application is to come into effect. The directions given by the learned Judge are as under ;-

" (1) This order will become effective from February 18, 1991, 12. 00 noon; (2) Plaintiff will file the requisite undertaking on or before February, 16,1991; (3) Ms. Freyan Desai, Advocate, C/o Dua and Associates, 204-206 Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, and Mr. R. S. Sodhi, Architect, C-48, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi, are appointed joint Local Commissioners to respectively supervise and record the stage of construction of the property in question. The representation of the parties shall be allowed to be present at the site at the time of execution of the commission. The Local Commissioners shall also record any observation or objection as may be requested by either of the parties. They shall take video film of the property both of its exterior and interior and may also take photographs, if they so choose. No obstruction will be caused to the Local Commissioners in the discharge of their duties by any one and they shall have free access to any portion of the property. Either of the parties may submit plans of the property to the Local Commissioners in order to expedite their work. As to whether they should visit the site jointly or individually at different times shall be left to the discretion of the Local Commissioners. They shall complete their work on or before February 17, 1991. (4) Ms. Freyan Desai, Advocate, shall further supervise the exit of the defendants into the property in question on February 18 1991 at 12. 00 noon, and entry of the plaintiffs at the same time. She will report compliance to the court thereafter. (5) The plaintiff shall be free to carry out any further construction/ improvement in the property after the order becomes operative. Each of the Local Commissioners shall be paid Rs. 10,000. 00 as her/his fee in the first instance, which I have fixed tentatively, at the rate of Rs. 2000. 00 per day. The fee shall be exclusive of all the expenses which the Local Commissioners might have to incur. The fee and the expenses shall be borne by the plaintiff and will be subject to further orders of the Court. The Local Commissioners shall submit their report immediately after execution of the commission. "

( 2 ) THE necessary facts stated by the learned Judge are as follows :-

(I) "the plaintiff is the Federal Government of the United States of America having its diplomatic mission in New Delhi. There are two defendants. First defendant is stated to be a partnership firm engaged in the business of engineering and building contracts. Second defendant is the managing partner of the first defendant. At this stage itself, it may be noted that the first defendant earlier filed a suit. Suit No. 932 of 1986, against the Government of the United States of America and their contracting officer for recovery of over Rs. 1. 18 crores for the work done on property bearing No. 16, Amrita Shergill Marg. and also No. 14, Amrita Shergill Marg. The two suits have been consolidated by an order dated November 26, 1990. Since there are two cross suits, it will be appropriate to use the names of the parties instead of desc