JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---There is a dispute between the petitioner and several respondents about the tenancy rights of room No. 2 on the Ground Floor of 107, Dadiseth Agiari Lane, Fanaswadi, Bombay No. 2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the said room and claims to have obtained all rent receipts in his name since 1943. He also claims to have been residing in the said room along with his wife, daughter and son from the year 1943. In support thereof he showed us the rent receipts and a Ration Card obtained by some one other than the petitioner in 1966. Petitioner, his wifes names also appear to have been entered therein and subsequently struck. He filed an Ejectment Application being No. 724/E/1965 under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, against 8 persons including respondents Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 27 to this petition. The non-applicants to the said Ejectment Application raised a plea of being the co-tenants and an issue as to their co-tenancy or licensee was framed under section 42-A of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act and was decided against the petitioner by the trial and appeal Court and subsequently the said Ejectment Application was dismissed on 22nd September, 1976. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order in Special Civil Application No. 5160 of 1976 in which rule has been granted on 19th November, 1976. 2. In the meanwhile, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein and other 27 persons filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, being Suit No. 8165 of 1976, for a perpetual injunction against the present petitioner restraining him from bringing any female member of his family to stay in the suit premises. This relief is prayed on the basis that the plaintiffs in the suit i.e. the respondents herein are the co-tenants of the said room No. 2, with the petitioner alone. An ad interim appears to have been granted on 7th December, 1976 and Mr. Mantri the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents made a statements at the bar that the ad interim injunction order in City Civil Court Suit No. 8165 of 1976 was served on the petitioner on 8th December, 1976. An ad interim appears to have been granted on 7th December, 1976 and Mr. Mantri the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents made a statements at the bar that the ad interim injunction order in City Civil Court Suit No. 8165 of 1976 was served on the petitioner on 8th December, 1976. Still the petitioner filed A.O. No. 403 of 1976 in the High Court against that order of injunction dated 7th December, 1976 instead of appearing before the said Court and contesting the same and obtained a stay of that order of the City Civil Court when the said A.O. came for admission on 21st December, 1976, in the High Court, of which breach is claimed in this petition. According to the petitioner, this stay order was communicated to the Advocate of the respondents herein as also the respondents in the said A.O. No. 403 of 1976 on 27th December, 1976. 3. Mr. Morje, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a statement at the bar that a copy of the petition and the notice were served on the respondents on 27th December, 1976. 4. In this application for contempt the petitioner had made references to many instances of alleged assaults on the petitioners wife and daughter by the respondents, in respect of which the petitioner claims to have lodged written complaints at the Police Station concerned. A specific instance is alleged to have taken place on 15-2-77 in which the petitioners wife is alleged to have been assaulted. In reply to this petition, respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit denying all the averments made in the petition and also denying the alleged assaults. On the other hand, it is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioners have assaulted some of the respondents and the petitioner and the members of his family have been hauled up in a criminal case under section 325 I.P.C. by the police. 5. To this, rejoinder is also filed by the petitioner setting out certain more facts. 6. We do not propose to go into the detailed controversies and the disputes between the two parties. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the respondents are guilty of any contempt. 5. To this, rejoinder is also filed by the petitioner setting out certain more facts. 6. We do not propose to go into the detailed controversies and the disputes between the two parties. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the respondents are guilty of any contempt. It is obvious that the injunction order passed by the learned City Civil Court Judge on 7th December, 1976, has been stayed by this Court on 21st December, 1976. The only legal effect of this stay order is that the injunction granted by the City Civil Court on 7th December, 1976 would become inoperative. In other words, there will be no order restraining the petitioner from staying with his wife, daughter and son in the room No. 2 on the ground floor. The allegations of assaults made in the petition is also in the three written complaints to the police to which our attention was drawn, do not indicate how the respondents or any one of them can be said to have committed the contempt of the Court. Even if it is assumed that the cases of assaults are proved, that still cannot amount to the breach of the order passed on 21st December, 1976, which only stayed the operation of the order dated 7th December, 1976. The assaults alleged cannot in any manner be connected with the respondents attempt to eject the petitioner or the members of his family from the room. We may also further add that even if any attempt is made by any of the respondents to eject the petitioner or the member of his family, it is doubtful if it the same will amount to any contempt of Court at all, unless this Court is shown to have issued any injunction restraining the respondents from interfering from or ejecting or removing the petitioner or any member of his family from the room, does. It is not alleged that any other Court has passed any such order of injunction. Even if the said order of this Court is so construed, though we find it very difficult to construe the same in that manner, no case whatsoever can be said to have been made out in the petition of in the papers filed before us that any of the respondents have sought to forcibly eject the petitioner or the members of his family from the room. We are not aware as to the circumstances in which the alleged assaults have taken place as we are left merely with the bare allegations without any details thereof. Apart from this, when such allegations are made by the parties against each other, who are at logger-heads and the dispute is going on between them for a long time, this cannot be a fit case permitting any litigant to invoke the extra-ordinary powers of this Court, in contempt to punish for punishment. There is no justification for the same. Bench the order :-- 7. Rule is therefore discharged with costs. -----