SHAHBUDDIN ISMAILBHAI GHASWALA Vs. KESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI TANDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Pardi below Exh. 29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1983 filed by the respondent No. 2. alleged tenant against respondent No. 1 the landlord. By the aforesaid order the petitioner who was not a party to the suit has been deprived of his possession of the suit premises which are situated at City Survey No. 327 of Vapi town and which consist of two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor The detailed description with regard to area of the property in dispute is given in the plaint a copy of which has been produced on record by the counsel for the petitioner. The description reads as follows: ***

(2.) The petitioner occupied the property since the year 1968. By sale document dated 22/06/1979 the respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) purchased the property from one Kansa Dadabhai forcible possession from the petitioner. Hence on ar about 12/03/1980. the petitioner filed complaint before the Police under the provisions of sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and asked for protection. The Police made report to the Executive Magistrate concerned who initiated the proceedings under the provisions of sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and attached the property and sealed the same and called upon the parties concerned to show cause as to who was in lawful possession of the property. After recording evidence and after hearing the parties The learned Magistrate decided the case in favour of the landlord and held that the landlord was in possession of the property on the date of dispute. This order was passed on 15/08/1981 On the same day the landlord is alleged to have executed a lease in favour of respondent No. 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the alleged tenant) and as per the this lease deed the landlord handed over the possession of the disputed property to the alleged tenant.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed by the learned Executive Magistrate by filing Criminal Revision Application in Sessions Court of Valsad at Navsari. The revision application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge who confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No. 171 of 1982 in the High Court. This High Court after hearing the parties quashed and set aside the orders passed by the lower courts and held that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the property on the date of dispute (which would be 12/03/1980 or Marc 15/03/1980 This Court further directed that the learned Executive Magistrate should restore the possession of the disputed property to the petitioner within a period of date of receipt of the writ of this Court.