PRAVIR KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H. S. Thangkhiew, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned PP, Meghalaya and Mr. T. T. diengdoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE petitioner was a tenant of respondent No. 4 in respect of premises covered by Patta No. 15/03 and Municipality Holding No. 199 of Ward No. 4 of Shillong Municipality, a tenancy agreement to this effect was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 on 1. 3. 1998. The said premises were occupied by the petitioner and his two domestic helps namely-Sri Arun Kumar Nath and Shri Uday Sarma.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that a relationship between him and the respondent No. 4 was cordial till August, 2002. However, on 6. 8. 2002 a legal notice was issued by the respondent No. 4 through her Advocate alleging that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of monthly rent in respect of the said rented premises and directed the petitioner to clear all the arrear rents within the month of August, 2002. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the basis of this notice he paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to one Shri Mrinal Kumar Deka on 5. 10. 2002, the authorized representative of respondent No. 4. The petitioner however, alleged that on 4. 11. 2002, when the petitioner was in his Tea Estate residence in Golaghat he received a telephone call from his domestic help Mr. Arun Kumar Nath informing that the respondent No. 4 with the help of some unknown persons had forcefully entered into the premises by breaking the door and removed all the belongings of the petitioner from the premises. Accordingly, the petitioner on receipt of this information reached Shillong on 6. 11. 2002 and approached the police by filing a report on 7. 11. 2002 to the Superintendent of Police, Shillong City. The petitioner lodged another report on 8. 11. 2002 to the Superintendent of Police, Shillong City informing about the kidnapping and confinement of Shri Arun Kumar Nath by respondent No. 4. As the petitioner did not get any response from the police, the petitioner lodged another report on 9. 11. 2002. According to the petitioner the police did not take any action on the said reports lodged by him.