LAWS(BOM)-1983-6-27

NARENDRA RAUT Vs. KAMAL DANDEKAR

Decided On June 20, 1983
NARENDRA RAUT Appellant
V/S
KAMAL DANDEKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed by the Petitioner challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated October 19, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 1981.

(2.) The present proceedings arise out of a complaint filed by 1st Respondent on February 16, 1981 under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said complaint was numbered as Case No. 110/N of 1981. It is common ground that the dispute in this controversy relates to a room in block No. 4, situate on the ground floor in Parle Vaibhav Co-operative Housing Society, Dixit Road, Vile Parle (East), Bombay-57. It is also common ground that the first respondent is the owner of the said block (who will hereinafter referred to as "the landlady") and she has been residing in the said premises for the last 10 years. The petitioner claims to be in exclusive possession of the said room. The landlady in her complaint alleged that some time in May 1980 the petitioner approached her and told her that he is a final year student of J. J. School of Architecture and is a son of Dr. Raut, a famous Surgeon of Nagpur and a grand-son of Mr. Tidke, the then Minister, Maharashtra State. On these representations, according to the landlady, the petitioner requested her to accommodate him in the said block during day time. The petitioner also offered his personal services to the landlady as she is alone and old. It is then alleged by the landlady that within a short time she found that the petitioner has misled her and especially she found that when she was operated for.cataract in the Jaslok Hospital, the petitioner had managed to obtain exclusive possesucn of outer room i. e. room in dispute by shifting her articles and furniture from the said room to the kitchen. The petitioner had also put his lock to the said room. According to the landlady, when she returned from the hospital she found that the petitioner had occupied the said room and started claiming exclusive possession by putting his lock. It is then alleged by the landlady that some time in the month of January, 1981 the petitioner was found indulging in drinking along with goondas during night hours and they all used to harass her. The landlady, therefore, was constrained to lodge several complaints at Vile Parle Police Station against the petitioner and one of such complaints was on 16th February 1981. She further alleged in her complaint that there is likelyhood of breach of peace over the possession ot the disputed room which the petitioner claims to be in his exclusive possession and, therefore, she requested the trial Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the same day the landlady also preferred an application under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code and requested the trial Magistrate to seal the premises, viz., the room in dispute admeasuring 12 ft. X 10 ft. having an entrance door towards the side of the street.

(3.) Upon the said complaint, the learned trial Magistrate issued notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed his say to both the applications under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the Petitioner, he is tenant in respect of the entire block and he has paid a pugree of Rs. 5,000/- and has been paying Rs, 300/- fent per month since May 1980, The Petitioner also stated that he has paid rent to the landlady under two . cheques for the month of May and June 1980. According to the Petitioner, when he was in actual possession of the entire block the landlady first occupied the front room and then slowly began to use the kitchen and sanitary block along with the Petitioner. The Petitioner admitted that he is the son of Dr. Raut, a famous Surgeoa of Nagpur and a grand-son of Mr. Tidke the Minister, Maharashtra State. According to the petitioner, he has been in joint possession with the landlady and, therefore, proceedings under Section 145 cannot be initiated. The Application is false and the same be rejected. Thus, in substance, the petitioner claims firstly tenant in respect of the entire block and exclusive possession in respect of disputed room.