HARJEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Due to the outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the instant case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorari, for quashing of the impugned order dated 16th May, 2020 (Annexure P-15), whereby, respondent No.3 had ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from House No. 325, Sector 14, Urban Estate Karnal. Further, petitioner has also prayed for a writ of Mandamus, for directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner over the house in question. Besides above, certain other prayers have also been made.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that she is a 53 years old widow. She had been residing in House No. 325, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'house in question1), as a tenant since the year 2005-06, after taking the house in question on rent from Smt. Bhago Devi, mother of Bishambar Dass (respondent No.7), for which she had been regularly paying rent to the respondent landlord. After the death of her husband in a motor vehicular accident in the year 1995, she was compelled to sell off her husband's house due to financial constraints and she also filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for which she was awarded and received compensation of Rs. 25.00 lakhs in the year 2016. Her son, who is based in U.K. has also been financially supporting the petitioner. Respondent No.7 - landlord was well aware of the above facts and hence he offered to sell the house in question to the petitioner by telling her that she could make the payment towards purchase of the house as per her convenience. The petitioner accepted the offer to purchase the house in question and started gradually making payment to respondent No.7. Over a period of time, she paid Rs. 40.00 lakhs and requested the respondent landlord to transfer the house in her name as already settled between them. However, respondent No.7 refused to do the needful. Rather, an application was moved against her by respondent No.7 alleging therein that she had not been paying the rent to them and went ahead and got the electricity disconnected in the house in question. Respondent No.7 thereafter tried to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the house in question with the help of unknown persons. In this background, left with no other choice, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondents No. 7 and 8 (Annexure P-2). Respondents No.7 and 8 filed their written statement in the said suit (Annexure P-4). Liberty was granted to the petitioner by the Civil Court concerned to apply for a new electricity connection in her name as a tenant of the suit property. In the meanwhile, respondent No.7 also filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Annexure P-5), for the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in question. The petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller in the aforementioned petition and filed her written statement (Annexure P-6). Despite the civil proceedings pending between the parties, the respondents continued to extend threats to the petitioner to vacate the house in question or else face dire consequences, for which she repeatedly made representations to respondent No.5 - Superintendent of Police, Karnal, for the protection of her life and liberty and for taking action against the landlord-respondents, but in vain. On 05.03.2020 an attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the house in question was made by the private respondents, wherein, the petitioner was manhandled and threatened to be killed. Even though the police authorities were duly informed about the occurrence, instead of coming to the rescue of the petitioner, they started pressurizing her to compromise the matter with the private respondents and vacate the premises. As if that was not enough, on 09.03.2020, the private respondents along with some persons again forcibly entered the house in question, where she had been residing all alone, after breaking the lock and threatened her that in case she refused to vacate the premises, she would be killed (In support of her allegations, photographs Annexures P-10 and P-ll have been annexed with the instant petition). The petitioner yet again approached the police authorities for taking appropriate action against the private respondents and others for trespassing into the house, but the police again pressurized her to enter into a compromise with the private respondents. Left with no other choice, the petitioner filed CRM-M-10848-2020 in this Court for the protection of her life and liberty. This Court vide order dated 19th March, 2020 (Annexure P-12), directed the respondent State to look into the alleged threat and thereafter, the case was adjourned to31.03.2020. However, due to the lockdown imposed on account of outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the case was adjourned to 01.07.2020. Meanwhile, the respondent landlord submitted a complaint to respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Karnal (Annexure P-13), to register a case against the petitioner for being in unauthorized possession of his house and not paying the rent to him regularly. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, directed the SDO(C) to conduct an inquiry into the matter and to submit his report within three days. The petitioner was called by the SDO(C) and she filed a detailed reply (Annexure P-14), wherein, she mentioned about the pendency of civil and rent proceedings between the parties. However, despite the petitioner having brought all these facts to the the notice of SDO(C), respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Karnal passed the impugned order dated 16.05.2020 (Annexure P-15), vide which respondent No.3 - Tehsildar, was directed in his capacity as Duty Magistrate to get the house in question vacated from the petitioner.