SHAMIMAL HODA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against three orders passed by Shri K. J. Sen Gupta, Chief presidency Magistrate, Calcutta in section H. C. Case No. 379 dated 5. 6. 68 under sections 148/341/448/457/380 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, the order dated 6. 6. 68 enlarging the accused-petitioner on a bail of Rs. 750/- on condition that he will not go to the disputed room in question and would report to the Investigating Officer; the order dated 19. 6. 68 whereby the Chief Presidency magistrate, Calcutta, did not find any reason to revise his previous order and rejected the application filed on 13. 6. 68 together with the certified copy of the order of interim injunction passed by the Judge, 7th Bench, City civil Court, praying that the key of the disputed room may be made over to him for giving effect to the order of the City Civil Court; and the order dated 11. 7. 68 whereby the Chief Presidency magistrate refused to revise his order passed previously on 6. 6. 68 and to direct the police to make over the key of the disputed room to the accused-petitioner rejecting thereby the petitioner's prayer as contained in his application dated 8. 7. 68 for the delivery of the key of the disputed room so that he may enter into the same and remain in occupation thereof till the disposal of the case.

(2.) THE background of the facts leading on to the present Rule is a chequered one. The case of the accused-petitioner Shamimul Hoda inter alia is that he and his elder brother one ilmul Hoda are the two partners of m|s. Savan Plastic, a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing plaslic goods since June, 1966 with the help of power on the ground-floor of 3, Kshetradas road, Calcutta, upon payment of a monthly rent to the de facto complainant and others, the joint owners of the said premises. Rent receipts were issued by the landlords in favour of the petitioner from May, 1966 uptil June, 1967 when according to the petitioner, the landlords having put off granting such rent receipts upon various pretexts, the petitioner apprehended troubles and started depositing rents with the Rent Controller, Calcutta to the credit of the said landlords from july, 1967. The petitioner's case further is that there are some costly machineries in the said ground-floor room at premises No. 3, Kshetradas Road, calcutta, as also other pieces of furniture and fixtures belonging to the petitioner and his brother for the purpose of carrying on their trade. There has been a regular payment of the licence fee to the Corporation of Calcutta on account of the above-mentioned business and a separate electric meter also stands in the name of the petitioner and his brother.

(3.) THE long-standing dispute between the landlord and the tenant unfortunately came to a head on 4. 6. 68 when the petitioner had left the said factory room after keeping the same under lock and key. On coming back at about 7 p. m. he was surprised to find that during his absence the room was broken open and movables were thrown away in the courtyard while some other machineries of the petitioner were kept inside the room. The petitioner's case is that thereupon he put back his belongings inside the room and occupied the same. Upon enquiry he came to know that the landlords had filed a suit in the High Court being o. S. Suit No. 2346 of 1967 against rahamatulia said to be a former tenant and/or occupier of the aforesaid room and obtained an ex-parte decree for recovery of possession against him on 15. 3. 68. In execution of the said decree, the de facto complainant had taken possession of the room through the Sheriff of Calcutta and others during his absence on 4. 6. 68. The moveables were thrown out but the fixtures remained intact. The petitioner was surprised because he was not a party to the said suit and the person against whom the decree is said to have been obtained is, according to the petitioner, neither a tenant nor an occupier, at least since after May, 1966, and therefore the tenancy or possession of the petitioner was not affected in any way whatsoever. After the petitioner had so taken back possession, one of the landlords, md. Israil, lodged an information with the Bowbazar Police Station against the petitioner and his brother averring inter alia that in execution of the decree of the High Court he had obtained possession of the disputed room and thereafter had kept some articles inside it, but the petitioner and his brother along with other rowdy persons had forcibly broken open the lock, removed some of his articles and had taken forcible possession of the disputed room. The police thereupon arrived and arrested the petitioner on 5. 6. 68. They also seized the belongings of the petitioner found inside the room on a seizure list, and. further put a lock on the door, preventing the petitioner thereby to enter therein and carry on his trade. According to the petitioner, the cheque books, the ration cards of the petitioner and others which were not included in the said seizure list, were nonetheless lying in the disputed room. The petitioner was thereafter produced before: the Chief Presidency Magistrate, calcutta, who by his order dated 6. 6. 68! enlarged him on a bail of Rs. 750|- on condition that he will not go to the room in question and report to the investigating Officer.