D. Datta, J. - (1.) The petitioner, an octogenarian, allegedly, has been forced to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court feeling highly aggrieved and thoroughly frustrated by physical and mental torture inflicted on him by the respondents 5 and 6, his son and daughter -in -law respectively. He has claimed the following relief: a) A Writ of and/or Writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned Respondent their agents and/or successor -in -office to allow the Petitioner to enjoy and use his all the properties including his flat at P -247, C.I.T. Road, P.S. Phoolbagan, Calcutta - 700 054 (2nd and 3rd floor) with Garage and Servant's quarters in the ground floor after recovery of the possession of the said flat from the unauthorised occupation of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and their associates forthwith; b) A Writ of and/or Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned Police Respondent Authorities to see that the Petitioners peaceful living is not disturbed in any way by any of the Respondents and/or their associates and if necessary by rendering Police Posting at the residence of the Petitioner at his cost and to act according to law; c) A writ of and/or Writs in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the concerned Respondents from creating mental and physical torture to the Petitioner and not to disturb him from leading his peaceful and smooth living at this old age. d) A Writ of and/or Writs in the nature of Certiorari directing the concerned Respondents to certify, transmit and to produce the relevant records of the case before this Hon'ble High Court at the time of hearing so that conscionable Justice may be administered in the matter;.
(2.) It may be placed on record that hearing of the writ petition was fixed in chamber to avoid embarrassment of the parties and to explore, through mediation, the possibility of ending the acrimonious relationship between a father and a son, which I considered to be most undesirable. They were given a hearing separately. In course of hearing, the petitioner and the respondent 5 levelled diverse accusations against each other which were in bad taste. I did not want the parties to wash their dirty linen in public and, therefore, decided against inviting affidavits. The only positive aspect that emerged was the offer of the respondent 5 to maintain the petitioner by providing him whatever he needs. But such offer was quickly followed with a caveat. The condition imposed by the respondent 5 was that the petitioner may be directed not to bring any outsider and stay with him in the flat presently being occupied by both of them. I had enquired from the petitioner, prior to the respondent 5 being heard, whether he would be satisfied if I persuade the respondent 5 to maintain him. He flatly declined and submitted that he would not like to survive on the mercy of the respondent 5. He only wished to have his son and daughter -in -law vacate the flat belonging to him, which the respondent 5 refused asserting his right in his grandfather's property. Both parties seemed adamant in their stands and a solution was not in sight. The petitioner had been apprised of apparent weakness in his case, when he urged me to decide the issue raised in the petition according to law.
(3.) I have, therefore, no option but to consider the petitioner's claim on merits.;