RAJBIR SIGH Vs. PURUSHOTTAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition alleging that he had been the tenant in the premises in dispute for a long time and the landlord respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent No. 3 the Police Inspector wanted to evict the petitioner forcibly from the said premises and in that apprehension the petitioner filed the case before the Munsif, Meerut praying that he should not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute without due process of law and in the meanwhile temporary injunction may be granted restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 3 from evicting the petitioner forcibly. But the petitioner had been evicted forcibly by the said respondents.

(2.) In the aforesaid writ petition this Court vide its order dated 30-5-95 directed the District Magistrate, Meerut respondent No. 5, to take appropriate action for restoring the possession of the petitioner within a week of producing the certified copy of the said order before him by the petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed on the submission on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the order of the Civil Court dated 9-5-1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) the petitioner a tenant, had been dispossessed by the landlord-respondent No. l, in collusion with the respondent No. 3, the Police Inspector. The aforesaid order was passed also bearing in mind settled principle of law laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Midnapur Zamindary Company Ltd. v. Naresh Narain Rao, AIR 1924 PC 144, wherein the following observations have been made:-"In India persons are not permitted to take possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court."

(3.) The aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ratan v. State of U.P., (1977) 2 SCR 234, holding that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner, if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedy under the law. Similarly in the case of Krishna Ram Mahle v. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097, Supreme Court has observed as under:-"It is well settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property even in the assumption that he has no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law."