- (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceeding under Regulation 161 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Regulation, 1966 (the said Regulation for the sake of brevity).
(2.) The husband of the writ petitioner, namely, S.K.Roy alias Sushil Kumar Roy, was a tenant under one Jagannath alias Jagannath Arrora in respect of one single storied house situated at Haddo under new survey No.22 corresponding to old house site No.11, which was let out for the purpose of residence as well as for using it as a godown . Jagannath Arrora, since deceased, instituted a suit against his said tenant for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of default. THE suit was registered as Other Suit No.5 of 1984 in the Court of learned Senior Subordinate Judge at Port Blair. During the pendency of the suit, Jagannath alias Jagannath Arrora died intestate and all his heirs were substituted as the substitute plaintiffs instead and in place of the said Jagannath Arrora in the said suit. The private respondent, who is the daughter of Jagannath Arrora, was, also, substituted as one of the heirs of the said Jagannath Arrora in the said suit. By judgment and decree dated March 30, 1988, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, on contest, with costs. The learned judge had found, as finding of fact, that the defendant was in occupation as a tenant for more than sixteen years and, during these long period, the plaintiffs never cared to undertake any repair in the suit premises, which were built mainly by timber. The learned judge, also, found that there was neither any agreement of enhancement of rent nor any new tenancy was created as alleged by the plaintiffs. The court recorded that the defendant deposited, after appearance in the suit, the entire arrears of rent at the admitted rate and, therefore, the defendant was no longer defaulter and the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any arrears of rent.
(3.) It is on record that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, the Police and the Municipal Authorities in 1989 that the brother of the private respondent was creating nuisance and was constructing a hut with Chatai just in front of the tenanted premises. The private respondent, namely, Shrimati Sasi Sankala, filed an application under Regulations 98 and 161 of the said Regulation in the office of the Tahsildar at Port Blair. The application was filed through her constituent attorney Ashok Kumar alias Ashok Kumar Arrora. The said Ashok Kumar Arrora was, also, substituted as one of the plaintiffs in the Other Suit No.5 of 1984. The application was filed alleging that Sushil Kumar Roy, since deceased, and R.M.Chakbraborty were tenants inducted in the single storeyed wooden house situated at Haddo village. The land has been recorded in the name of the private respondent in the government settlement record of rights. The said Sushil Kumar Roy and R.M.Chakraborty became tenants under the private respondent. She got married with D.C.Sankala, who was a member of the Indian Administrative Service, and was posted at New Delhi. She being the wife of the said D.C.Sankala was, also, residing with her husband at New Delhi. The said tenants, taking undue advantage of her absence from these islands, started construction upon vacant land lying in the backside of the single storied wooden house, that is, tenanted house. She, therefore, prayed for ejectment of both the said persons from the vacant land where they were raising construction of a building. It appears from the order sheet of the said proceeding under Regulation 161 of the said Regulation that the Tahsildar registered the said application received from the said Shrimati Sasi Sankala, through her power of attorney, on January 13, 2004 as a revenue case. Surprisingly, even before the registration of the case, the Tahsildar called for a report from the field staff. It does not appear from the materials on record whether such inspection was conducted by the field staff with notice to the husband of this writ petitioner. However, a showcause notice was issued on the said tenants only on June 13, 2004 asking them to vacate their alleged unauthorized occupation of the disputed land.;