- (1.) This application is at the instance of the landlords of the premises and is directed against the order dated August 7, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in G.R. Case No.671 of 2009 under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of a certain premises.
(2.) The petitioners have claimed that they are the owners of the premises in question at BB-84, Salt Lake City, Sector-I, Kolkata- 700064 and the accused persons of the G.R. Case No.671 of 2009 were the tenants of the said premises. A criminal case under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC was lodged against the tenants and the police, during the investigation, kept the said premises under lock and key as the tenants/accused persons had already vacated the premises. Now, the landlords have prayed for recovery of possession of the premises in question. That application of the landlords was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State, it appears that while disposing of the application for getting back the possession of the premises in question, the learned Trial judge has simply recorded that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted before him that the matter of the same nature was pending before the Hon ble Court and as such, he was not in a position to determine the merit of the application in that stage and so the application was rejected.;