ABDUL HAMID Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant before this Court has invoked the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while challenging the two orders dated 1.8.2014 and 21.3.2016 passed by Learned City Magistrate, Dehradun and Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Dehradun (in revision) respectively, admittedly in a proceeding relating to Section 133 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The matter relates to the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the present applicant is the tenant of private respondents no. 2 and 3 in their residential accommodation situated at Mohini Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun. According to the applicant, he has been residing in the said accommodation as tenant for the last several years, a fact which is not denied. It is an admitted fact again that earlier the predecessors in interest of the landlords had filed application for the release of the premises, in question, under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the year 2002, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.4.2007. No effort was made for its restoration. Also, in the year 2002, another suit for rent and eviction was filed by the landlords against the present applicant before the Small Cause Court, which was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.5.2007. Again, no effort was made for its restoration.

(3.) Much later, however, an application was moved by the landlords before the concerned Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. stating that the house in which the present applicant lives and of which they are the owners and landlords, is in a "dilapidated condition" and is causing public nuisance and it needs immediate repairs and the applicant be therefore evicted. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the relevant police station. That report is on the record in the form of Annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit which states that there is a dispute between the landlords and the tenant and the applicant is living with his family as tenant and the house is an old construction. However, there is no finding by the investigating team as to whether the house is actually in a dilapidated condition and, more importantly whether its condition is actually a public nuisance or a danger to the public in general particularly for the residents of the neighbourhood.