ORDER : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. By way of present contempt petition, the petitioners have alleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court so also breach of his own undertaking, which he had given. 2. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 15.01.2019, while disposing of the first appeal filed by the respondent, this Court had allowed him to retain possession of the disputed shop up to 31 st July, 2020 subject to payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits up to the date of handing over the vacant possession. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in spite of the clear directions given by this Court and furnishing undertaking, the contemnor did not hand over the possession and the same came to be recovered by the executing court on 31.10.2022. 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel argued that since the contemnor has blatantly violated the order passed by this Court, he be punished for wilful disobedience inasmuch as even after service of the notice of contempt no heed was paid to vacate the premise. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent – contemnor at the outset tendered an unconditional apology and submitted that after passing of the order, and much before the scheduled date, the applicant had moved an application for (Civil Misc. application No.59/2020) seeking extension of time which was filed on 11.08.2020 and remained pending though notices were issued. 6. Learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent is suffering from neurological issues and is under continuous medication while also submitting that during the aforementioned period of retention of possession, entire country was affected by the pandemic Covid-19 and it was not possible to vacate the premise and relocate the business. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Indisputably, the possession of the subject shop has been taken on 31.10.2022 and entire mesne profits have been paid. True, it is that the approach of the respondent amounts to non- compliance of the order and breach of his own undertaking and thus, may fall within the ambit of contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 . 9. However, having regard to the fact that during the period of breach the country was facing Covid-19, this Court is unable to record the finding that such breach was deliberate. 9. However, having regard to the fact that during the period of breach the country was facing Covid-19, this Court is unable to record the finding that such breach was deliberate. Thus, it is deemed apparent to take a lenient view against the contemnor, more particularly, when he is indisposed. 10. The Court therefore, accepts the unconditional apology that has been tendered by the respondents. 11. Notice of contempt are hereby discharged. 12. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.