LAWS(JHAR)-2002-3-25

NEELAM SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On March 19, 2002
NEELAM SINHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming to be illegally dispossessed from the tenanted premises has moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction upon the respondents for putting the petitioner and her family members in possession of the tenanted premises which is a residential house.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case inter alia is that she with her family members were in occupation of a house situated at Amaralaya Bhawan, Park Market, Hirapur, Dhanbad as a tenant for the last 20-25 years under Late Rati Devi, mother of respondent No. 6 who was the landlord. In 1992, respondent No. 6 filed a suit for eviction being Title (Eviction) Suit No. 125/1992 which is pending in the Court of Ist Additional Munsif at Dhanbad. It is contended that although the aforesaid eviction suit is pending, respondent No. 4 Executive Magistrate and respondent No. 5 Assistant Sub-inspector of Police Dhanbad in connivance with respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 forcibly evicted the petitioner and her family members from the tenanted premises on 2-7-2000. Petitioner immediately reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. It is stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 alongwith police force entered into the tenanted premises of the petitioner and thrown away all the house-hold articles.

(3.) CURIOUSLY enough, respondent-landlord namely, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have taken totally different stand in their counter-affidavit by stating that despite the decree passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 116/85 and they were put in possession in execution of that decree, petitioner in connivance with her parents and husband forcibly tresspassed into the premises for which respondents had to file a suit for eviction of the trespassers from the said premises being Title Suit No. 125/92. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the premises in question has become totally unsafe due to dilapidated condition and respondent No. 6 filed application u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. Dhanbad which was registered as M.P. Case No. 206/95. The S.D.M. Dhanbad by order dated 8-9-97 directed for eviction of the premises in question by the husband and father of the petitioner. Pursuant to order passed u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, which was not allowed and against that order, respondent No. 6 moved application before the Sessions Court who by order dated 23-7-98 gave a finding and made observation against the order of the S.D.M. Dhanbad. It is stated that ultimately petitioners was removed from the premises with the help of police and the Magistrate breaking upon the lock.