Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, a Non Resident Indian, has approached this Court with the prayer that a writ order or direction be issued to the official Respondents to provide him "adequate security... to enable him to continue in his rented house without any fear or threat and for taking appropriate action against the landlord Joginder Singh and Nihangs threatening "him to "vacate the house on account of facts and circumstances mentioned in the writ petition.
(2.) THE Petitioner alleges that the Respondent -landlord is troubling to vacate the house. He apprehends danger from him. He has filed a civil suit at Kharar, praying for permanent injunction along with an application for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the landlord from forcibly dispossessing him. Despite the interim order, the Respondent -landlord had disconnected the electricity supply and stopped the water supply. Despite the undertaking before the Court, the electricity connection has not been restored. On September 5, 1999 he was "called by Baba Naagar Singh, Niang of village Saulkhia, District Ropar. and threatened that he should vacate the demised house immediately or else the Nihangs will forcibly evict him..." This threat was repeated by Baba Sumitar Singh of Haria Bela Wale at Hoshiarpur. On receipt of these threats, the Petitioner claims to have met the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mohali, on September 7, 1999. However, no action was taken. On September 8,1999 some Nihangs came in a Jeep and entered the Petitioner's house. The matter was reported to the police. Copies of the representation and receipt have been filed as Annexures P1 and P2. On these premises, the Petitioner prays for the issue of a direction as aforesaid. The allegations made by the Petitioner have been denied in the reply filed by Mr. Bachan Singh Randhawa, Superintendent of Police. Mohali, on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It has been pleaded that the writ petition is not competent. It has been averred that the Petitioner's allegation that he met the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mohali, On September 7. 1999 , "is wrong and incorrect." It has been categorically stated that the Petitioner never informed the S.H.O. that he is under "some sort of fear or threat by anyone." The receipt of the representation, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P1, has been admitted. On receipt of this representation, the S.S.P., Ropar, had asked for a report. This report was sent on September 21, 1999. A copy of the report has been produced as Annexure R1 with the reply. It was found that the Respondent -landlord was residing at the first floor while "while complainant resides at ground floor. Both parties are indulged in civil suit (sic) at Kharar Court to vacate the house. Rest threatening by Baba Naagar Singh of village Saulkhia Distt. Ropar and Baba Sumitar Singh of Haria Bela Wale, Hoshiarpur, the occurrence area does not fall in Mohali Police jurisdiction, so the complaint may be sent to concerned Police Station for investigation." The dispute is between the landlord & tenant. It is of a civil nature. The Petitioner is blowing the matter out of proportion only to claim security.
(3.) A separate written statement has been filed by way of an affidavit of Joginder Singh, Respondent No. 5. In this reply it has been, inter alia, alleged that the premises had been let out to the Petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/ -. The Petitioner has not paid anything since January 1999. A suit for possession along with a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages was filed on June 30, 1999. The Petitioner had refused to accept the notice. The suit was adjourned to June 30,1999. There was an announcement regarding the suit by beat of drum. However, the Petitioner did not put in appearance. The suit was adjourned to November 2, 1999 to serve the Petitioner by way of affixation. The Petitioner was, thus, delaying the suit intentionally. He says that the Petitioner's apprehension is ill -founded. The Petitioner had filed the suit by making wrong assertions. Electricity supply had been disconnected as the Petitioner had not paid the electricity bills. However, it was restored in compliance to the order of the Court. In fact, the Electricity Department had disconnected the supply and Respondent No. 5 had to get the connection restored by making full payment from his own pocket. A copy of the receipt issued by the authority has been produced as Annexure R.2. The allegations regarding threats from the Nihangs have been denied. A copy of the plaint in the suit filed by Respondent No. 5 has been produced along with the written statement.;