PRANAB KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. MD. AKRAM HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a peculiar way of exercising powers under Sections 133 and 144, Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate and the way the order has been passed I deem it proper to direct the learned district Magistrate, Gauhati to look into the matter.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 herein filed a petition on 11 -1 -90 under Section 133 read with Section 144, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional district Magistrate, Kamrup at Gauhati and the petition was registered as case No. 14 M/90. The petition was transferred to the court of Sri J. N. Bhuyan. In the petition, the petitioner stated that he was an aged man and used to reside in the land described in the petition. It was further stated that there is a 'tin Chali' wherein the opposite party i.e. the petitioner before this court kept some unhygenic articles. According to the said petitioner the room was kept under lock and key for about 5 months and few days prior to filing of the said petition bad smell was coming from the said room. It was further alleged in the petition that foul play might have been committed and that the room needed immediate replacement of the Tin Chali and also necessary repairs. It was further pleaded by the petitioner in that petition that the room was urgently required for the use by his unemployed children and that whereabout of the petitioner herein was not known. It was prayed that necessary direction may be issued to the paltanbazar Police Station to brake open the lock, make a list of the articles inside the room and to remove these articles and allow the said petitioner to use the room for his own purpose after necessary repairs and renovation. In other words in that petition the eviction of the petitioner herein was prayed through police help by invoking the provisions of Sections 133 and 144, Cr.P.C.

(3.) IN the present petition it has been alleged that the petitioner is a tenant of a room under the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the petitioner in the above petition before the learned Executive Magistrate and that the present petitioner is doing his business in the said room. The petitioner has specifically stated that no notice of the above proceeding was served on him and it is also false that he was avoiding notice. It has also been urged that from the list of articles found in the room after removing the lock it would appear that there was ho chance of bad smell coming out from the said room. It has been stated in the petition that after removing the goods, the opposite party No. 3 i.e. sub -Inspector of Paltanbazar Police Station put another lock in the room and handed over the key to the landlord. It has been specifically stated that the landlord with previous arrangement with the learned Executive Magistrate and the said Police Officer got the proceeding drawn up with the intention of evicting the petitioner from the room and that the learned Executive Magistrate exercised his powers with a mala fide intention and acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the entire proceeding may be quashed and the possession of the room may be handed over to the present petitioner.