SHIV CHARAN ALIAS CHAND Vs. KM NIRJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATIONS No. 136929 of 2003 filed by tenant-petitioner on 11.8.2003 and 191525 filed by landlord-respondent on 14.8.2003 are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51135 of 2002) has been filed by tenant-petitioner against judgment and orders passed against him by Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Appellate Authority under Section 22 of the Act. Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Meerut by its judgment and order dated 14.3.2002 allowed the release application which was numbered as P.A. Case No. 51 of 2000. Appeal numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2002 was dismissed with slight modification by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut through judgment and order dated 14.11.2002. Through order dated 30.11.2002 passed in the writ petition eviction of tenant-petitioner was stayed till 31.1.2003. The stay order was extended from time to time and by the last extension order dated 24.4.2003 stay order was directed to remain in operation till 30.7.2003. On 28.7.2003 application for extension of stay order was filed. The said application on 30.7.2003 was directed to be listed with the record in the next cause list. Unfortunately the case was not listed in the next cause list i.e. cause list of 6.8.2003. On 7.8.2003 possession of the shop in dispute changed hands from tenant-petitioner to landlord-respondent. According to the tenant- petitioner he was forcibly ejected by the landlord on 7.8.2003. Through his application dated 11.8.2003 tenant has prayed for inter alia re-delivery of possession.

(3.) THE tenant-petitioner contested the release application tooth and nail filed appeal, thereafter he filed the writ petition. In the writ petition on several occasions, the stay order was got extended by the tenant-petitioner. On 28.7.2003 application for further extension of stay order was filed. Immediately after his possession (dispossession ?) on 7.8.2003, the tenant- petitioner filed application for restoration of possession on 11.8.2003 (9th and 10th August 2003 being Saturday and Sunday). In this scenario it is unbelievable that the tenant, should have willingly handed over the possession. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- alleged to have been received by the tenant for voluntarily vacating the shop could even otherwise be recovered by the tenant as two years rent amounting to about Rs. 10,000/- had already been awarded by the Courts below. The fact that after filing of the application by tenant for restoration of possession on 11.8.2003 landlord filed application on 14.8.2003 mentioning therein that tenant had willingly vacated the shop further proves that the landlord had forcibly taken possession of the shop in dispute. The application filed by the landlord on 14.8.2003 is nothing but a device to steal a march over the tenant. Role of Police Authorities in the incident is also not above board. The landlord had an eviction order in his favour. Stay order passed by this Court had expired; the landlord could take possession only through process of Court under Section 23 of the Act and not otherwise. Even when the State is owner/landlord, it can not take forcible possession vide AIR 1989 SC 997 and AIR 2002 SC 1493. How the police has put locks over the shop in dispute is also not clear. Neither any proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are pending nor legally any such proceedings can be initiated when the matter is subjudice or has recently been decided. A decree holder can dispossess a judgment debtor only in the execution proceedings through process of Court and not forcibly. If the police assisted the landlord in his nefarious activity strict action in civil matters without the orders of Court is highly undersiable and requires to be checked.