JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Heard Shri Gilda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the non-compliance of the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994 is not a civil contempt within the meaning of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971, yet on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in (Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and others)1, 1989 Supp (2) S.C.C. 418, the respondents have committed the contempt by not complying with the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994. 2. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has himself conceded that the non-compliance of the judgment and decree by the respondents is not a civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ordinarily, question of hearing the petitioner further in the matter would not have arisen, but since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Firm Ganpat Ram v. Kalu Ram (cited Supra), the observations made in the said judgment may be adverted, to find out that due to the non-compliance of the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994 by the respondents what consequence should follow. 3. In Firm Ganpat Ram v. Kalu Ram (cited supra) the Apex Court passed the following order :- "In view of the finding that the landlord has made out a case for eviction under section 13(3)(c) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 the special leave petition is dismissed. The order of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months on the petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. The dismissal of the special leave petition should also not prevent the petitioner to the benefit of putting back into possession in the equivalent accommodation in the reconstructed building provided the Court lays down such condition while interpreting the provisions of the Act. We are informed that the question is pending consideration before this Court in some other cases i.e. W.P. Nos. We are informed that the question is pending consideration before this Court in some other cases i.e. W.P. Nos. 13385, 9921-24 of 1983 etc." Despite the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, no undertaking was filed by the tenant and he also did not vacate the premises on expiry of six months from the date of passing of the order and when the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings for disobedience of the order dated 24-8-1987 passed by the Apex Court, the Supreme Court thus observed : "Though contempt is a serious matter and it interferes with the right of those who are found guilty of contempt, no Court should allow any party to mislead the Court and thereby frustrate its order. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that though perhaps the respondents could not be found guilty of violating any undertaking as there was none, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should ensure compliance with its order dated August 24, 1987 and see that vacant and peaceful possession is given to the applicant in the interest of justice." 4. Thus, it would be obvious that the Supreme Court held that in the absence of an undertaking the tenant could not be held guilty of contempt, but in the facts and circumstances of the case obtaining before the Supreme Court, the apex Court felt that the order passed by the said Court should be complied with and that vacant and peaceful possession was given to the landlord in the interest of justice. 5. In the present case, there is no order directing the tenants to furnish undertaking before this Court, nor four months time to vacate the premises was granted to the respondents on furnishing of the undertaking. On the oral request of Shri Khamborkar, the learned Counsel who was appearing on behalf of the respondents, four months time was granted to deliver vacant possession of the premises and time granted to deliver vacant possession was not based on any undertaking filed before this Court and, therefore, for not delivering vacant possession within four months, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any civil contempt. The observations made by the Apex Court in firm Ganpat Ram v. Kalu Ram (cited supra) were confined to the facts and circumstances of that case and it cannot be said that in the present case the respondents can be held guilty of civil contempt by not delivering vacant possession of the suit premises within four months when on the basis of oral request made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, time was granted. 6. If the premises have not been vacated by the respondents within four months despite the judgment and decree passed by this Court, the course open to the petitioner is to have the decree executed in accordance with law, and the present proceedings under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the petitioner, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself has conceded that it is not a civil contempt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, are misconceived. Consequently, this contempt petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. *****