KHEM ARORA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has come to this Court complaining as to how rule of law is defied. He states that he was in possession of a shop in the town of Patna. The land lord (respondent no.7) in connivance with the Police in order to evict him put locks thereon. With this allegation, a writ petition was filed. This Court, vide order dated 09.10.2013, directed the City Superintendent of Police, Patna, to conduct an enquiry. Petitioner then claims that he had readymade garments in the shop worth over Rs. 2 lacs, which would get spoiled if they were allowed to be locked. Respondent no.7, fortunately the land lord, appeared.

(2.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel in support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the State and Police officials and Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is already noted above. On behalf of respondent no. 7, it is submitted that undisputedly premises was rented out to the petitioner. Recently, he came to know that the petitioner was negotiating for sale thereof unauthorizedly to one Uttam Kumar and another. That was in violation of the lease. Petitioner was creating a false partnership document. His case is that he informed the Police and, accordingly, the Police put the lock on the premises of the petitioner. The enquiry report of the City Superintendent of Police, pursuant to the order of this Court, is more revealing. It notices only question of title and ownership of the premises and virtually states that Police has no role to play and Police has not locked the premises. The question is : as per the stand of each of the party, the premises was in peaceful possession of the petitioner then who put the lock. If it was not locked by respondent no.7, the landlord and so also by the Police, then the petitioner is free to break the lock and open the premises and retain the premises. If it was locked by the Police, they had no business to do this. They cannot take law into their own hands. Law is well-settled in this regard. If a person is trespassing some one else's property, the land lord has every right to protect his right and stop trespass on his property and take all reasonable steps in that regard. But once the possession is perfected and the person comes in peaceful possession of property, then even though the person is a civil trespasser, he can only be evicted therefrom in accordance with the procedures established by law, which is eviction suit or a title eviction suit, as the case may be, but not in such a manner by taking help of the Police. That would be antithesis rule of law. This Court fears that if such an action is permitted, there will be absolute anarchy and every one will start taking law into his own hands to settle the property dispute.