SANJIV JINDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate drew the attention of this Bench to the following part of the order dated 12.9.1998 passed by Honourable Mr. Justice S.C. Malte as he then was) to support his contention that the police was unduly interfering in the affairs of the petitioner in so far as his landlord is concerned:-

(2.) The petitioner in this background sought issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents so that respondent No. 3 in particular may not indulge in unauthorised interfering and inter meddling in the affairs of the landlord and the tenant. Mr. Amar Vivek points out that the order dated 12.9.98 prima facie shows the interest taken by the police, which fact has been noticed by Honourable Mr. Justice S.C. Malte (as he then was). At this stage Mr. S.S. Randhawa, DAG, for the State of Punjab inter evened on behalf of the respondents and assured the Bench that the respondents No.2 and 3 will not interfere in any manner with the affairs of the tenancy between the petitioner - tenant and his landlord. Mr. Amar Vivek also informs that the landlord had filed some petition which has since been dismissed by the trial Court. However, he says that the petitioner has no problem with his landlord and he would face and contest whatever proceedings are initiated by the landlord.

(3.) I have carefully heard the rival submissions DAG has assured the Bench on behalf of respondents, the respondents No. 2 and 3 and in particular respondent No. 3 will bear in mind that no inter meddling on his part is to be done in the matter relating to the tenancy of the petitioner and in his dispute with his landlord. Mr. Randhawa will apprise the contents of this order to the concerned respondents. Accordingly, it is directed that a copy of this order attested by the Reader be handed over to Mr. Amar Vivek learned counsel for the petitioner and to Mr. S.S. Randhawa, DAG, for the State of Punjab who will intimate the same duly to the concerned respondents. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner feels any inconvenience or any interference from the respondents, petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court. Petition is disposed of accordingly.