ASHIM KUMAR ROY,J. - (1.) This writ application has been moved seeking quashing of the impugned order being Annexure P -6 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities to evict the writ petitioner from the premises in question.
(2.) THE writ petitioner is the wife of respondent no.7, whereas the respondent no.6 is her father -in -law. According to her case after her marriage, she along with her husband, respondent no. 7 started living at the Flat No. C/16 Baltikuri, Government Housing Estate, Baltikuri Howrah, which was under the occupation of her father -in -law, the respondent no.6 in the capacity of a tenant under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 along with other members of her in -laws house. During her stay there, she gave birth to a female child. It is now contended initially after marriage, her conjugal life was happy and peaceful but after a few days, the members of her in -laws, more particularly, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 started torturing her both mentally and physically. Thereafter, the said respondents and her other in -laws abandoned her there and her minor daughter and left the place. It is submitted during the period when the respondent no.6 was not there, it was the writ petitioner who had been regularly paying rent for the said flat and the same was duly received by the respondent no. 6. It is then added in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner moved an application invoking the provision of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah being Misc. Case No. 450 of 2011, where the relief sought for was a protection order under Section 18, residence order of shared household under Section 19 and for compensation and for other reliefs and obtained an interim order passed on January 13, 2012 and the same is still pending. In course of his submissions, the learned counsel of the petitioner drew the attention of this court to annexure P -5 and pointed out as because the respondent no.6 was not in occupation of the flat in question, the respondent no.5, the Estate Manager, Estate Directorate, Government of West Bengal, first issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his tenancy shall not be cancelled. Thereafter by an order subsequently passed, the tenancy was terminated and the respondent no.6 was directed to hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent authorities. He then added that copies of both the show cause notice as well as the termination order were served on the writ petitioner and communicated to her. He then invited the court's attention to annexure P -6 and pointed out that by this order, the order of termination of tenancy was cancelled but although such order was communicated to the respondent no.6 but nothing was intimated to the writ petitioner. He then vehemently submitted that now taking advantage of that order, he reasonably apprehends the respondent no.6 will again forcibly enter into the said premises and disturb her to live there peacefully with her minor daughter. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned order be quashed and the respondent no.6 shall be restrained from disturbing his possession in respect thereof.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this application and submitted that this is a purely a private dispute between the writ petitioner and the private respondents and therefore this writ application cannot be sustained and prayed the same be dismissed.;