ORDER 1. HEARD THE PETITIONER, APPEARING IN PERSON, AND LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS. 2. ON 9-10-2003, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS WAS DISMISSED, FINDING NO MERIT IN IT. AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS IN THE SAID SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (RESPONDENTS HEREIN), TIME WAS GRANTED TO VACATE THE PREMISES IN QUESTION TILL THE END OF JUNE 2004, SUBJECT TO THEIR FILING USUAL UNDERTAKING TO THIS COURT. INSTEAD OF VACATING THE PREMISES, THE RESPONDENTS FILED INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2004 SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME, PLEADING VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING THAT THEY HAVE IMPROVED THE PREMISES IN SEVERAL WAYS. THAT INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION WAS FILED DURING VACATION AND THIS COURT PASSED THE ORDER TO LIST IT AFTER VACATION. ON 6-9-2004, THE SAID INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED. 3. TODAY, THE PETITIONER, APPEARING IN PERSON, SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION YESTERDAY I.E. 12-9-2004 AT 3.00 P.M. BUT HE COMPLAINED THAT IN SPITE OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THIS COURT TO VACATE THE PREMISES BY THE END OF JUNE 2004, THEY HAVE OVERSTAYED IN THE PREMISES TILL YESTERDAY I.E. 12-9-2004. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A LOT OF DAMAGE IS CAUSED TO THE PREMISES; ELECTRICITY AND WATER CHARGES ARE ALSO NOT PAID, ETC; 4. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS, BASED ON THE CONTENTS OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2004, SUBMITTED THAT IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE TO THE PREMISES IN QUESTION AND SINCE INJUSTICE WAS DONE TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE SOCIETY, NO FURTHER ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN. ON THE OTHER HAND, DIRECTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE SOCIETY TO GIVE SOME ALTERNATIVE FLAT TO THE RESPONDENTS. 5. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER DATED 9-10-2003 THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE BOUND TO VACATE THE PREMISES BY THE END OF JUNE 2004. THEY HAVE VACATED IT ONLY YESTERDAY I.E. 12-9-2004 AT 3.00 P.M. NO FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME WAS A GRANTED. MERE FILING OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME DOES NOT MEAN AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF TIME. THAT APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED ON 6-9-2004. THE RESPONDENTS ARE BOUND TO COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER FOR OVERSTAYING IN THE PREMISES, APART FROM COMMITTING BREACH OF THE UNDERTAKING AND THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 9-10-2003. MERE FILING OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME DOES NOT MEAN AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF TIME. THAT APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED ON 6-9-2004. THE RESPONDENTS ARE BOUND TO COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER FOR OVERSTAYING IN THE PREMISES, APART FROM COMMITTING BREACH OF THE UNDERTAKING AND THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 9-10-2003. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE POSSESSION HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE B PETITIONER, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO PROCEED WITH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BUT, HOWEVER, WE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY A SUM OF RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND TO THE PETITIONER, APPEARING IN PERSON, FOR OVERSTAYING IN THE PREMISES WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY. WE GIVE LIBERTY TO THE PETITIONER TO APPROACH THE COMPETENT COURT IN REGARD TO RECOVERY OF DAMAGES TO THE PREMISES, IF ANY, CAUSED AS WELL AS ARREARS WITH REGARD TO ELECTRICITY AND WATER CHARGES. IT IS C EQUALLY OPEN TO THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PERMISSIBLE IN LAW WITH REGARD TO IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, MADE IN THE PREMISES. 6. THE CONTEMPT PETITION IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISPOSED OF.