NAZMA KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to command respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to protect life, property and privacy of her as well as the members of her family from the hands of respondent No. 7 and his associates by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus.

(2.) The petitioner asserts, inter alia, that she belongs to the minority community ; she is tenant of the premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 300 since 1980 of respondent No. 7 who resides on the ground floor of the said house ; she is a social worker and the Joint Secretary of U. P. Congress Committee (I) besides Sanyojika of its Mahila Wing ; her husband Sikandar Khan is a renowned contractor and they are having 3 sons and 4 daughters, the eldest one is married : in her premises aforementioned she is also having a telephone bearing No. 652959 : respondent No. 7 is a man of criminal nature who has opened a gambling centre on the ground floor of the house where men-anti social and criminal in nature assemble ; respondent No. 7 claims himself to be a worker of Bhartiya Janta Party and close to the Chief Minister of the State ; respondent No. 7 always threatens the petitioner ; since January, 1998, she has been making complaints in writing as well as oral against the activities of respondent No. 7 but no heed was paid by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : respondent No. 7 thereby became angry and threatened her to evict from the tenanted accommodation and cause harm to her life and property besides involving her as well as her children in false cases apart from getting her three young daughters kidnapped ; respondent No. 7 also got lodged on 15.3.1998 a false First Information Report at police station Kotwali. district Dehradun under Section 452/506, I.P.C. which was registered as Crime Case No. 127 of 1998. against two of her sons ; on 18.3.1998 respondent No. 7 did not allow her to enter her tenanted accommodation and . Ice then has locked it in which her house holds, telephone and other cosily articles are lying ; a complaint (as contained in Annexure-2) made on 18.3.1988 to respondent No. 2, a further complaint made on 20.3.98 (as contained in Annexure-3) to respondent No. 4. an application dated 20.3.98 (as contained in Annexure-4) given by her to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate, Dehradun and S.H.O. police station Kotwali. Dehradun as well as a further application (as contained in Annexure-5] sent by a citizen to the Chief Minister all have proved futile and hence this writ petition invoking Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.

(3.) Sri H. S. Nigam. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances the petitioner has got no remedy under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and thus this writ petition, being the most appropriate remedy and it is a fit case in which this Court should intervene and grant desired relief to the petitioner who has been victimised by respondent No. 7 in a number of ways.