Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional City Magistrate (I) Bareilly, on an application filed by the respondent-landlord.
(3.) The contention in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the tenant of shop no.137 Semal Kheda Bareilly, since 17.03.2003 and is regularly paying monthly rent to respondent no.5, who is the owner of the shop in question. An application has been filed by respondent no.5 on 13.10.2011 before the Additional City Magistrate stating therein that the petitioner had illegally occupied the shop and the appurtenant land and threatened her with dire consequences. This application was entertained and a report was called upon by the Additional City Magistrate. As per the report submitted by the Sub Inspector, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, there was some dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5. and consequently the proceedings under Sections 107 & 116 Cr.P.C. had been initiated to maintain peace and tranquillity.;