JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Petitioner herein alleges contempt of the order dated 17.03.2016, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 23 of 2016, as per which, the petitioner had stated before the Court that he shall be vacating the demised premises within a period of four months from the date of the order, i.e., 17.03.2016 and thereafter, the landlord was to commence construction within a period of six months from the date the premises were vacated and complete the same within a period of one year after obtaining statutory permissions. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the fact that the premises stand vacated by the petitioner, however, neither the construction has been commenced within a period of six months nor the same has been completed within a period of one year. 3. On a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that premises were not vacated by the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.03.2016. Meaning thereby, the petitioner himself had not complied with the spirit of order dated 17.03.2016. 4. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the premises were got vacated by the landlord by virtue of the orders which were passed by the learned Executing Court in execution of the Order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 04.10.2017 and present petitioner had not vacated them as per order of this Court dated 17.03.2016. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, the petitioner has no locus to file and maintain the present petition. As the petitioner himself had not complied with order dated 17.03.2016 passed by this Court, the subsequent part of the said order, contempt of which is alleged, stood rendered in effective. Initial onus was upon the petitioner to have had vacated the premises in terms of order dated 17.03.2016 and thereafter, had the respondent not complied with the subsequent directions contained in the said order, then obviously this Court would have gone into the issue as to whether there is any willful disobedience of the Court order or not. However, in view of the facts narrated hereinabove, said situation did not arise in the present case, as the petitioner himself did not vacate the premises in terms of order dated 17.03.2016. However, in view of the facts narrated hereinabove, said situation did not arise in the present case, as the petitioner himself did not vacate the premises in terms of order dated 17.03.2016. Accordingly, as there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Notice is discharged.