JUDGMENT We are of the view that at this stage no case for making any order against respondent No.4 under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out. Our attention is drawn to the statement made by applicant himself in para 7 of the instant petition, wherein the relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 87 of 1981 is extracted. It is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that this Court had made a direction for the matter to be disposed of in terms of section 18 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in so far as the concerned defendant (herein the petitioner) to be rein ducted into the reconstructed premises. True, the premises admittedly have been reconstructed and it is also not denied that some shops have been let out. However, the question that still remains to be determined is of the petitioner being reinducted under the provisions of section 18 of the Act, for which decision has to be rendered in pending execution proceedings. Shri Lahoti has made a grievance that since 1983, when the defendant had filed an application in exercise of his right of re-entry under section 18 of the Act, the matter has not been decided. That grievance is really serious and for that respondent-landlord Mahila Jamunabai must be held responsible if she is not cooperating in early disposal of the matter in the Court below. In these circumstances, we are making a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of the matter finally within 2 months and if the concerned Court finds that the landlord is not cooperating the proceedings may be taken ex parte and even order for cost, may be passed against the landlord respondent With the above directions, the matter is disposed of.