JUDGMENT : 1. These petitioners seek initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent for an alleged will full violation of this Court's order dated 29.1.1989. 2. After the order of the High Court dated 27.7.1988 confirming the decree of eviction was made, the respondent-landlord took possession of the property on 3.8.1988. 3. On 25th January, 1989 this Court, in the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner-tenant, made an interim order in the following terms: "Issue notice both on the special leave petition and on application for stay returnable on 8.3.1939. Pending notice, there will be an ad-interim injunction against the respondent restraining her from parting with the possession of the suit premises or creating any third party's entrance therein. An affidavit dated 20th of January, 1989 to be taken on record." 4. In the meanwhile, it is claimed by respondent, respondent had delivered possession of the property to a lessee under an Instrument of Lease dated 5.8.1988. The lessee, it is averred, had sub-leased the property to several sub-lessees with the oral permission of the respondent. Petitioners say that these transactions were actually entered into collusively after the order of this Court made on 25th January, 1989 but shown to have been entered - anterior date under unregistered, plain-paper documents amenable to such antedating. 5. It is unnecessary to go into this controversy at this stage. Suffice it to say that any transfer made during the pendency of these proceedings would attract Section 52 of the T.P. Act and the transferee, whether lessees or sub-lessees, would be bound by the final decision of this Court irrespective of whether they are eo nominee parties or not. Equally, they would get the benefit of the ultimate decision. There is no dispute that the alleged leases or the sub-leases are pendent lite and are, therefore, clearly subject to the final result of these proceedings. However, in order to ensure that in the event of the.c petitioners succeeding, they would be put back in possession, it is necessary to appoint the respondent landlord as the receiver in respect of the property. It is so ordered. It is not necessary for the receiver to account for the income and profits of the property during the pendency of this litigation. It is so ordered. It is not necessary for the receiver to account for the income and profits of the property during the pendency of this litigation. However, if the petitioners succeed, the respondent-landlord shall be liable to put back the petitioners into vacant possession and all the alleged leases or sub-leases shall be bound by the ultimate result in this case. 6. The contempt petition is, thus, disposed of. C.A.No. 2702/1989 7. In supersession of the orders made earlier, place this matter before a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges. If in its opinion, the matter requires to be placed before a larger Bench, appropriate orders may be made in that behalf.