BALMOKAND FAQIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

(3.) The facts of the case as emerging from the impugned order are that on the basis of police report of SHO, P.S.-Mantola, District-Agra dtd. 27/9/2022 which was forwarded and recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra vide order dtd. 3/10/2022, the respondent no.6 was reported to be a criminal, who had amassed huge property by indulging in cheating hapless persons and was also indulging in anti-social activities. Petitioner is a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Balmokand Faqir Chand, 3/43-A, Kacheri Ghat, duly registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and is dealing the business of Edible Oils. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order on the report prepared by respondent no.4 and approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra (respondent no.3) on 20/1/2023. The said property has been attached on the ground that the same was acquired by money earned out of criminal activity, whereas the petitioner or its partner is not the accused in the Gangster Act and the First Information Report has been registered against respondent no.6 (Mohd. Shan), who has purchased the building in question, in which, shop is situated from successors of Gopi Nath Agarwal on 11/2/2019, whereas the tenancy is from 1948. It is further contended that there is rent receipts in favour of the Firm available on record. It is further contended that successor of Late Gopi Nath Agarwal by sale deed dtd. 11/2/2019, has transferred the aforesaid House/shop Nos.3/43, 3/43-A, 3/43-A/1 in favour of respondent no.6 (Mohd. Shan) having total area of 161.62 sq. meters, out of which, 17.82 sq. meter is commercial shop, for which, petitioner is continuously paying rent to respondent no.6 @ Rs.2000.00 per month, copies of receipts issued by respondent no.6 have been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner had moved a representation claiming himself to be the bona fide tenant before the District Magistrate, Agra, but the same was rejected by the District Magistrate, Agra considering the fact that petitioner is not a bona fide tenant and he does not come within the purview of Sec. 15(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that finding recorded by the District Magistrate, Agra that petitioner is not a bona fide tenant is misconceived as the District Magistrate has omitted to consider the affidavit as well as the license granted by the Department which is renewed from time to time and also payment of GST regularly paid by the petitioner's firm, which clearly proves that the petitioner-firm is the tenant of the shop in question and the business was being run therein. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.