SHANKARLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order dated 8-6-1990 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Cr. Revision No. 13 of 1987, preferred against the order dated 22-10-1986 passed in Case No. 62/84-145, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shivpuri.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 2. Initially, he was occupying three rooms on second floor on monthly rent of Rs. 110.00 and was residing therein with members of the family. The landlady, on the pretext of the marriage of her son, asked the petitioner to shift temporarily in two rooms with a kitchan and a bath room on the second floor on the assurance that after the marriage of her son, possession of the tenanted accommodation which was initially let to him will be given to him. But, for one reason or the other, the marriage could not be solemnized in the year 1983 which ultimately was fixed on 27-2-84. The landlady again approached the petitioner with a demand that out of two rooms, for the time being, for accommodating her relatives, one room be given to her on the assurance that the room will be given back to the petitioner immediately after the marriage. On this representation and assurance, on 23-2-1984, the petitioner shifted all his members of the family in one room and gave one room to the respondent No. 2. After the marriage was over and the guests of the respondent No. 2 having left, the petitioner requested the second party on 28-2-1984 to give back room as it was not possible for seven members of the family to live in one room. The respondent No. 2 refused to give the possession and locked the room in which household articles of the petitioner were also lying. Petitioner, feeling helpless, served a notice on 8-3-1984 and tried to take possession, but, the respondent No. 2 with other persons resisted as there was likelihood of breach of peace, the petitioner made a complaint to the Collector on 9-3-1984 and then filed an application on 22-3-1984 under Section 145, Cr. P.C. with an application under Section 146, Cr. P.C. The S.D.M., on being satisfied, passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C. and ordered issue of notices to the parties concerned to appear on the date and time fixed and to put in written statement of their claim as respects of fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. The SDM, after making an order under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145, Cr. P.C. and considering the case to be one of emergency, attached the subject of dispute. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 2 appeared and filed her statement of claim with documents and took a stand that as the petitioner was not in a position to pay the rent of Rs. 100.00 of two rooms to which he shifted, handed over possession of one room and started paying rent of Rs. 60.00 per month. The SDM, after appreciating the claim, affidavit and evidence adduced by the parties, held that the story of inability to pay rent by the petitioner is concocted, the respondent No. 2 having taken possession wrongfully on the representation that the possession will be given after the marriage as the room was required to accommodate the guests, did not hand over the possession. As the petitioner was in possession of the room till 23-2-1984, who was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the filing of the application under Section 145, Cr. P.C., treated the petitioner as in possession on the date of the order made under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145, Cr. P.C. and directed the police to put the petitioner in possession of subject of dispute. The petitioner, after this order, was put in possession.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 preferred a revision. The learned additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision holding that the provisions of Section 145, Cr. P.C. are not attracted in the present facts of the case, as the petitioner was not forcibly dispossessed. On the other hand, the petitioner gave possession of the room at his own accord. Therefore, the order of restoration of the possession, passed by the SDM is without jurisdiction as the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were not maintainable. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this revision.