I.V.R.MOORTI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 30.08.2003 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum at Jamshedpur in Misc. (Information) Case No. 118 of 2003 whereby the Officer-in-Charge of the Sakchi Police Station was ordered to take possession of the shop in which the petitioner was tenant of the private respondent herein and also to take into custody the materials in the shop after preparing inventory. The petitioner has also sought direction upon the respondents to hand over all the materials taken in possession as per the inventory list prepared consequent to the order dated 30.08.2003 and also to put the petitioner back into possession. The petitioner has also prayed for compensation for illegally dispossessing him without taking recourse of law.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner entered into an agreement for tenancy with respondent no. 5 for two shops in the year 1991. He came into possession of the two shops in question and thereafter a financial consultancy business was run in the name of M/S. Murti Finance and Investment Consultancy. For the aforesaid consultancy business, various articles like office furniture and valuable goods such as Computer system, Telephone, FAX machine etc. were kept therein. Sometime in the year 2002, the father of the petitioner fell ill and for his treatment, he had to leave Jamshedpur after closing his business temporarily and putting the shops in question under lock and key. According to the petitioner, he never defaulted in payment of rent but the private respondent refused to take rent during the illness of his father. His father expired sometime in the year 2004 and he could not follow the business at Jamshedpur, which was ultimately wound up in August, 2006. However, to his surprise, he found that his shops were put under new lock and key and he had been dispossessed by the illegal acts committed by the respondents on the order passed in his absence by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, at Jamshedpur dated 30.08.2003 which is impugned herein in Misc. (Information) Case No. 118 of 2003. According to the petitioner, from perusal of the order sheet of the Misc. (Information) Case No. 118 of 2003, it appears that respondent no. 5 had requested the S.D.O, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur to prepare inventory of the articles in the said shops and hand over the premises to him whereafter the impugned order has been passed. Thereafter the police took possession of the materials/articles in the shops and prepared inventory thereof and the shops have been put under lock and keys of the private respondent in presence of two witnesses. As per the order sheet itself, these actions have been taken without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has assailed the impugned action on the ground that it has been done in complete teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where he could not have been dispossessed in such summary manner without resort to the recourse of law as he was admittedly a tenant of the private respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rame Gowda (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. and Another, 2004 1 SCC 769.