by the second respondent who is no other than the brother of the first respondent in the backdrop of the events which are mentioned hereinabove. The learned Rent Controller without examining the maintainability of the claim petition filed by the second respondent mechanically entertained the same and proceeded with the enquiry in the claim petition. From the fact situation of the instant case, it is obvious that the second respondent is well aware of the entire litigation from the beginning and filed the claim petition at the behest of his brother-first respondent. Since both the respondents are aware of the entire Court proceedings, the undertaking furnished by the first respondent before the learned single Judge virtually is an undertaking given on his behalf as well as on behalf of his brother, the second respondent. The claim petition filed by the second respondent before the learned Rent Controller therefore is not at all maintainable and by virtue of the order passed by this Court in this contempt case, it becomes infructuous and declared as non-est in exercise of inherent powers of this Court available under Sections 151 of C.P.C. to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. The respondents are granted two weeks time to vacate the premises and hand over the premises to the petitioner-landlord, failing which the petitioner will take the possession of the schedule premises with the aid of the police. The police having territorial jurisdiction over the schedule premises are directed to assist the petitioner-landlord in obtaining the possession of the schedule premises from the respondents. The Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad before whom the E.P. proceedings are pending is directed to issue a warrant of delivery of possession of the schedule premises and if it becomes necessary, the learned executing Court shall direct the police concerned to assist the bailiff of the Court in handing over possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner-landlord.
