- (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamusbe issued directing the opposite parties to restore the possession of the petitioner in Shop No. 3 of house No. 746, Palton Bazar, Sultanpur and to make the status-quoante as existed prior to 26- 11-2000. A direction be also issued to the opposite parties to return all the articles which were taken away while evicting the petitioner forcibly and to pay the compensation for damages caused during unlawful eviction.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner, he entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 2, Smt. Dulari Devi to take her shop situated in her house No. 746, Palton Bazar, Sultanpur on rent and paid Rs. 30,000 as advance and also agreed to pay Rs. 250 per month as rent with effect from 13-11-1997 till 13-11-2007. A copy of the agreement is annexed as Annexure No. 1. The petitioner was carrying on his business in the said shop since 13-11-1997 and paying the monthly rent regularly to opposite party No. 2. Some one assured opposite party No. 2 to give higher rent for the shop and, therefore opposite party No. 2 started insisting the petitioner to vacate the shop. On 20-9-2000, opposite parties threatened the petitioner and directed him to vacate the shop. Having no other alternative the petitioner filed Regular Suit No. 999 of 2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (South), Sultanpur praying that he be not dis-possessed from the shop, a copy of the plaint is Annexed as Annexure No. 1-A. The petitioner has also moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said regular suit to restrain the opposite party No. 2 from interfering in his peaceful possession. The said application could not be disposed of. The opposite party No. 2 made some complaint to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur who sent Dr. Ram Bilas Yadav, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Sultanpur, alongwith Shri Ashok Shukla, C. O. City, Sultanpur on 9-10-2000. Both the Officers warned the petitioner and asked him to vacate the shop. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave a representation to the opposite party No. 1 informing him about the pendency of the suit in Civil Court. Although the representation of the petitioner was pending, on 26-11-2000 at about 3. 00 p. m. the opposite party No. 1 sent force along with some Officers at the shop of the petitioner. As it was Sunday, the shop was closed. In presence of District Authorities, the lock was broken and all the items kept inside the shop were taken and the petitioner was dispossessed. Opposite party No. 1 evicted the petitioner from the shop without due course of law. The opposite party No. 2 has contended that the petitioner was a friend of her elder son Uma Shankar and used to come to her house during the life time of her son. Both his son and the petitioner used to take liquor in the shot. That she never entered into any agreement with the petitioner nor she ever gave the shop on rent to the petitioner. That the petitioner is a man of bad character and several criminal cases are pending against him. On 20-10-2000 the petitioner has placed his lock on the shop in question. The opposite party No. 1 District Magistrate has also filed counter affidavit and has contended that the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Dulari Devi had moved an application dated 18-9-2000 stating therein that the petitioner had taken forcible possession over the shop and because of this unauthorized occupation her son was shocked and died. Opposite party No. 2 moved another application dated 9-11-2000 praying therein to get her shop vacated as the petitioner was harassing her and had also threatened that if no action would be taken by the administration she would be compelled for self-immolation.
(3.) IT has also been contended that one of the daughter of opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Asha Rani, widow of late Shri Amarnath Singh who died in active service also sent an application through Lokesh Chandra, Major, Battery Commander praying for getting the house vacated. That enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar Sultanpur and C. O. City, Sultanpur who submitted their report on 17-11- 2000. IT was recommended in the report that since the possession of the petitioner was found to be illegal and unauthorized, he may be evicted from the shop. That there are several cases pending against him, hence, Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Naib-Tehsildar for taking necessary action and the Naib-Tehsildar on 26-11-2000 got the accommodation vacated and prepared the inventory of goods available in the shop. That unauthorized arms and ammunition was found inside the shop for which First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. That since the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the shop and the application was received from Army Officers, the petitioner was evicted. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the shop and his lock was placed at the shop at the time when he was dispossessed. Learned Standing Counsel has failed to point out any law under which the petitioner could be said to have been evicted from the shop in question. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition as he has already filed Regular Suit in Civil Court and he can claim possession in the said suit by amending the plaint.;