ASHOK KUMAR KHOWALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties the present petition is being heard and disposed of finally at this stage. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the respondent no. 4 had moved an application before the Sub-divisional Officer/Sub- divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, for handing over the peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent no.4 after breaking the lock, which was put by the petitioner in the premises in question. On the application of the respondent no. 4, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer/Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, was pleased to direct the police authority to break the lock and shift the articles found therein to the other place and to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent no.4. According to the petitioner he was in possession as a tenant in the premises in question and during his absence, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, has passed the impugned order while he had absolutely no jurisdiction to direct the police authority to break the lock and to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent no.4.

(2.) WHILE , on the other hand, case taken by the respondent no. 4 in the counter affidavit is that prior to 2006, the petitioner had approached the husband of the respondent no.4 to permit him to solemnize the marriage of his daughter from the premises in question and on his request, husband of respondent no. 4 had allowed the petitioner to occupy the premises in question temporarily. However, even after marriage of the daughter of the petitioner he failed to handover the vacant possession back to the husband of the respondent no.4. Meanwhile, the husband of the respondent no. 4 expired in the year 2006 and even after his death, despite repeated requests made by the respondent no. 4, petitioner failed to handover peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent no.4; during the period petitioner got constructed his new house in the other locality and had virtually shifted therein in the year 2008, but kept the premises in question under his lock and key, therefore, respondent no. 4 had moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question after breaking the lock put thereon.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , order impugned dated 15.06.2011 is hereby quashed. Let possession be restored to the petitioner forthwith. It is clarified that any observation made herein before was only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether, the petitioner shall be deemed to be a tenant or licensee as claimed by the respective parties. Present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.