AMARENDRA NATH VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition presents yet another instance of house, grab, a galloping social menace which is all too common these days.
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the complaint that she was in lawful occupation of the disputed accommodation as a tenant thereof until the forenoon of February 12, 1990. On return from the Court that day she found to her horror that some miscreants and criminals had forcibly occupied the accommodation after breaking open the locks without any legal right or authority in total disregard of the orders repeatedly passed by this Court recognizing the right and occupation of the petitioner over the accommodation. The petitioner immediately made an attempt to lodge a report with the Cantonment police narrating the entire episode and praying for immediate action. The police flatly denied to register the report or to do anything whatever in the matter without an order of the Court specifically directing restoration of possession to the petitioner over the accommodation. It is asserted that the petitioner ran from pillar to post and knocked at the door of the authorities the same evening beseeching them to intervene and remove the miscreants and restore possession of the disputed accommodation but to no avail. Not having succeeded in persuading the respondents - the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, to intervene in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court on March 1, 1990. The Bench took up the matter on March 2, 1990 and passed the following order : "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that inspite of the various orders passed in the past by this Court, the petitioner is being disturbed in continuing to be a tenant of the accommodation in question and, in fact, inspite of this Court holding as far back as on 10.11.1986 that the possession of the petitioner be not disturbed and subsequently declaring the petitioner as a tenant of the accommodation in question the petitioner is again being troubled by certain persons trying to grab the accommodation in question. Serious allegations in this case have been made by the petitioner. However, we do not like to express any opinion at this stage about the allegation whether the accommodation in question is being grabbed by certain miscreants or not. Suffice it to say that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the various orders passed by this Court, that the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question. We, therefore, direct the SSP, Allahabad that if the possession of the petitioner as tenant has been disturbed, he shall restore her possession and protect the petitioner from anti-social activists so that the petitioner may continue to live as a tenant peacefully. Certified copy of this order be issued to the Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today. Sd/- A.P.M., J, Sd/- R.K.G., J".
(3.) AFTER this order, the third respondent, viz, Upendra Singh alias Loha Singh, filed counter-affidavit and contested the claim of the petitioner asserting that he was himself in occupation in the disputed property as a care-taker on behalf of the landlady Mrs. S.D. Penn. In the counter-affidavit it has also been alleged that he was wrongfully dispossessed from the accommodation by the police under the interim orders of this Court, dated March 2, 1990 in regard to which he has lodged a report with the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is further alleged that he is a student of LL.B. (Second Year) in the Allahabad University.;