K.K. ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is yet another case in which a purely civil dispute between the parties was taken to a criminal courts under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because of an alleged precipitate action by one of the parties to oust another, otherwise than in due course of law, to bypass the cumbersome and prolix civil process.

(2.) THE premises in dispute has admittedly been in the occupation of one Ram Sarup during the last many years as a tenant and/or licensee under the Custodian of Evacuee property. Ram Sarup was apparently residing and possibly also carrying on business in the premises; Baij Nath, father of respondent No. 2, claims to have purchased the property, of which the premises in dispute form a part, from the Rehabilitation Department and contends that the Department had directed Ram Sarup to attorn to him. It is, however, claimed that Ram Sarup nevertheless never paid the arrears of rent to Baij Nath, however, admittedly took no step to evict Ram Sarup on that ground. Ram Sarup died on October 24, 1982 and was survived by a married daughter, named Gomti Devi. Gomti Devi has been living with her husband in a separate house. It appears that on the death of Ram Sarup, Gomti Devi occupied the premises in dispute apparently claiming to be the sole surviving legal representatives of Ram Sarup, a circumstance which was obviously not very payable to BVaij Nath, his son, Netar Prakash, respondent No. 2 and the other members of the family, who would naturally be keen to get rid of Gomti Devi on the ground that Ram Sarup left no heritable estate in the premises in dispute, apart from the movables in the property, to which Gomti Devi could possibly lay her claim. It is significant that on April 26, 1983, a suit was filed against Gomti Devi and her husband by Baij Nath through his son, respondent No. 2 to recover possession of the disputed premises from them on the ground that their possession was "unauthorised" and "illegal." The suit is still pending.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid composite order, K K. Arora filed a petition in the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by an order of December 17, 1983. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge primarily dealt with the preliminary order and came to the conclusion that on the material before the court, the Sub-divisional Magistrate had not Committed any "impropriety" or "illegality" in making the order. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, did not devote any attention to the part of the composite order by which the property ordered to be attached under Section 146 of the Code. The operation of the order of attachment had apparently been stayed during the pendency of the petition in the Sessions Court. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code against the order of the courts below was filed by K.K. Arora in this Court on December 19, 1983 and while admitting it, I found that counsel for the petitioner was not sure if the order of attachment bad already been carried out. I, therefore, made the following order on the application for stay, being Cr. M.(M) 2265/83 :