Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The petitioners complain of contempt of Court for disobedience of the order of stay of recovery of possession granted by this Court. The contention in the petition is that the stay of recovery of possession must be understood as covering a situation of fettering the right of the applicant to also effect a transfer of property. In this case after obtaining an order of stay, the contemners have transferred the property and hence it must be understood to constitute a contempt of Court.

2. The learned senior counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in Bishamber Dayal Versus Harish Chand and others-1988 (1) PLR 592, to contend that an order of injunction against a transfer and a change in nature of property must be taken as violated, if the party in defiance of the order creates a lease or demolishes a super structure. It can be noticed that this judgment would apply to a case where an interdiction against transfer is taken as a bar against the creation of lease. A direction not to change the nature of property must be taken as violated if there was a demolition of super structure. In either case, the creation of lease and demolition squarely violat