SURAIYA BEGUM Vs. MUSHEER AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 3-9-1990 passed by the Additional City Magistrate II, Lucknow in Case No. 33 of 1990 under Section 145, Cr. P.C. Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow.

(2.) Briefly speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist had moved an application dated 10-4-1989 in the court of Additional City Magistrate, II whereupon the report of the police station was called for. The Station House Officer, P. S. Wazirganj submitted his report dated 20-4-1989 saying that late Mohammad Hashim who was the husband of the revisionist, had taken shop No. 55, Jhaulal Pul, Gwynne Road, Lucknow on rent in 1955 and was carrying on tailoring work in the shop, that he died about twelve years ago and after his death, the revisionist was getting the tailoring work done through the opposite party No. 1. He further reported that the work of Musheer Ahmad not having been found satisfactory by, the revisionist, he (Musheer Ahmad) was removed from the shop. The S.H.O. also reported that presently Musheer Ahmad has been carrying on the work of tailoring since October, 1982 and he has paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 300 p.m. up to Sept. 1986 to the revisionist. Since the rent was sought to be enhanced by the revisionist, a dispute arose between the revisionist and the opposite party No. 1 whereupon the opposite party No. 1 began to deposit rent in the court of Munsif Havali, Lucknow. According to the S.H.O., there is dispute between the two on this score and an apprehension of breach of peace exists between them. A preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C. was passed on 22-4-1989 by the Additional City Magistrate. He also directed attachment of the shop under Section 146(1), Cr. P.C. but this order of attachment was later on quashed by this court. The revisionist as also the opposite party No. 1 put in their written statements and also adduced their evidence, oral and documentary before the learned Magistrate. On a consideration of the same the learned Magistrate concluded that the opposite party No. 1 has been in possession of the shop since Sept. 1988 and, therefore, he must be held to be in possession two months next before the date of preliminary order and as such the learned Magistrate restrained the revisionist from interfering with the possession of the opposite party No. 1 till the competent court passes a suitable order in respect of this shop. Dissatisfied with this order of the learned Magistrate, Suraiya Begum has preferred this revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as also the opposite party No. 1 and the learned Government Advocate. The lower court record has also been perused by me.