INDIRA Vs. VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the members of the 'A', party in M.C. No.4 of 1989 (R.O.C. No. 5001 of 1989) on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal, challenge the correctness of the order dated 24-7-1989 made by the said Magistrate purporting to be one under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, declaring possession in favour of the first respondent, who was 'B' Party No. 1 before the lower Court in respect of a house situated at Door No.7/16, Mudaliarpuram Fourth Street. Kodaikanal.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this revision will have to be stated now. The first petitioner is the owner of the disputed house. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the nephew of the second petitioner. The first respondent is a neighbour of the first petitioner and the second respondent is her husband. The third respondent is a house broker.

(3.) The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal, who had registered Crime No.227 of 1989 under S.145. Cr. P.C. on the basis of an occurrence alleged to have taken place at 11 a.m. on 28-6-1989 at Door No.7/16, Fourth Street, Mudaliarpuram Kodaikanal, requested the lower Court to initiate proceedings under S.145, Cr. P.C. The allegations therein show that the first respondent is a medical practitioner residing at her own house of No. 7/ 14, Mudaliarpuram Fourth Street and that the third respondent was the care-taker of the house situated at Door No. 7/ 16 of the same street, which belonged to the first petitioner herein. It appears from the allegations made, that the disputed house bearing Door N o.7/16, had been let out on a monthly rental of Rs.1,000/- on payment of an advance of Rs.5,000/- by the second petitioner herein to R.I. through the third respondent, who is a house broker. It is also alleged in the said petition that R.I. had occupied the house on 16-6-1989. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on 28-6-1989 attempted to evict respondents Nos. 1 and 2 forcibly from the disputed house. During the said process, some household articles belonging to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were thrown out of the house, which was locked by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. On a complaint preferred by the first respondent, a case in Crime No. 227 of 1989 was registered against petitioners 2 and 3 and some others for alleged offences under Ss.448, 454, 427 and 506 (ii), I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the third petitioner and another were arrested and remanded. Some of the household articles belonging to the first respondent were still in the disputed house. Under those circumstances, both the parties were trying to take possession of the disputed house and in that background breach of peace was anticipated.