The central legal point established is the enforcement of court orders, contempt jurisdiction, and the entitlement to reconstruction/restoration of premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 14th March, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, of disposal of Cont. Cas (C) No.148/2014 filed by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to seek his civil remedies against the respondents.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued and replies have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, respondent No.3 and respondent No.4. We heard the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and the counsel for the respondent no.4/NDMC. The respondent No.5 is the Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned police station.

3. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to commence from the beginning.

4. The appellant /his father was an old tenant at a rent of Rs.100/- per month in property No.N-5/2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi under the respondent No.2 The Motor and General Finance Limited of which the respondent No.1 is the Director. The appellant, on 4th January, 2003 was dispossessed from his tenancy premises in execution of an order of eviction obtained by the respondent no.2 Company in a petition for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed against some other person. The appellant, on 14th January, 2003, filed an application under Section 25 of the Rent Act in the Court which had passed and executed the order of eviction and whereunder the appellant had been dispossessed from his tenancy premises. The said application was allowed vide order dated 7th July, 2011 of the Court of the Rent Controller. It was held that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent No.2 Company in respect of premises No. N-5/2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi as shown in the site plan Ex.AW5/4 and as portion D2 in the site plan Ex. OW1/1 and that the appellant had been wrongfully dispossessed therefrom. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 Company was directed to restore to the appellant possession of N-5/2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi as shown in site plan AW5/2 and as portion D2 of site plan Ex.OW1/1.

5. However it appears that the respondent No.2 Company after wrongfully taking over possession of the premises aforesaid in the tenancy of the appellant, had commenced demolishing the same. On an application of the appellant, vide order dated 15th July, 2003 the respondent No.2 Company was directed to maintain status quo and not to carry out further demolition. Upon the respondent No.2 Company again, in or above the year 2005 proceeding to demolish the said premises, the appellant filed an application. The respondent No.2 Company however took a stand that the premises had fallen on their own. The appellant accordingly, after the order dated 7th February, 2011 of restoration of his possession, applied to the Rent Controller for a direction to the respondent No.2 to re-construct the property. The respondent No.2 objected contending that the property could be re-constructed only as per the provisions of the NDMC byelaws and no building could be reconstructed in derogation thereof and thus no order for reconstruction could be passed against the respondent No.2 Company. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 24th August, 2011 accepted the said plea of the respondent No.2 Company and refused to direct the respondent No.2 Company to reconstruct the tenancy premises. However the Rent Control Tribunal in an appeal filed by the appellant in this regard, vide order dated 5th July, 2012 directed the respondent No.2 Company to their original condition as shown in the site plans aforesaid.

6. The aforesaid order of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal have attained finality.

7. The respondent No.2 however failed to comply therewith and which lead to the appellant filing Cont.Cas (C) No.754/2012 in this Court.

8. The respondent No.2 Company contested the said contempt case by again contending that it had written several letters to the NDMC seeking permission to reconstruct the premises in the tenancy of the appellant as directed by the