(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and the State.
(2.) This case is another example of arbitrariness and highhandedness of the respondents authorities, who are the guardians of law and order in the district of Pakur, in dispossessing the petitioner from his possession without following the due process of law.
(3.) The short fact of the case was that the petitioner was running a grocery shop in a tenanted premises in the town of Pakur under the tenancy of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 had filed a suit for eviction bearing Title Suit No. 11 of 1988. The said suit was dismissed on merit by the Subordinate Judge, Pakur, in terms of the judgment dated 16.7.1991 disbelieving the case of respondent No. 5, the land-lord, of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. A copy of the judgment is Annexure-11 to the writ application. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred Title Appeal No. 21 of 1991 before the Additional District Judge, Pakur, which is admittedly pending.