M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claiming to be illegally dispossessed from the tenanted premises has moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction upon the respondents for putting the petitioner and her family members in possession of the tenanted premises which is a residential house.
(2.) PETITIONER 's case inter alia is that she with her family members were in occupation of a house situated at Amaralaya Bhawan, Park Market, Hirapur, Dhanbad as a tenant for the last 20-25 years under Late Rati Devi, mother of respondent No. 6 who was the landlord. In 1992, respondent No. 6 filed a suit for eviction being Title (Eviction) Suit No. 125/1992 which is pending in the Court of Ist Additional Munsif at Dhanbad. It is contended that although the aforesaid eviction suit is pending, respondent No. 4 Executive Magistrate and respondent No. 5 Assistant Sub-inspector of Police Dhanbad in connivance with respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 forcibly evicted the petitioner and her family members from the tenanted premises on 2-7-2000. Petitioner immediately reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. It is stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 alongwith police force entered into the tenanted premises of the petitioner and thrown away all the house-hold articles. Respondent No. 5, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhanbad in his counter-affidavit has stated that he was served with a requisition issued by the respondent No. 4 Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad Mr. Dharamdeo Prasad on 4-6-2000, whereby a section of police was required to be kept at his command and accordingly he was deputed with a section of force in terms of the requisition of the Magistrate. Again on 1-7-2000 a requisition was received by the Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad for a section of police force on 2-7-2000 and he was deputed for the aforesaid date with the Executive Magistrate. On 2-7- 2000 they found the premises locked where-upon the lock was broken open by the order of the Magistrate and the articles found in the premises were taken out in presence of local witnesses. The stand of respondent No. 5, therefore, is that he has discharged his duties as Sub-Inspector and obeyed the order of the Magistrate and therefore allegation of connivance is unfounded. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that respondent No. 4 Executive Magistrate is responsible for every act as he was the ring master in this regard. Respondent No. 4 has filed separate counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that, respondent No. 6 S.N. Mukherjee, an advocate at Dhanbad filed a petition before the respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad stating that he is a landlord of a house namely, 'Amaralaya' and he obtained decree for eviction in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 116/85. After the decree, said S. N. Mukherjee executed Execution case No. 1/88 and delivery of possession was handed over to the decree holder. In spite of that the family members of the petitioner tresspassed into the vacated rented premises. Respondent No. 3 therefore directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad to take action according to law, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the respondents to enquire into the matter and report.
(3.) CURIOUSLY enough, respondent-landlord namely, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have taken totally different stand in their counter-affidavit by stating that despite the decree passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 116/85 and they were put in possession in execution of that decree, petitioner in connivance with her parents and husband forcibly tresspassed into the premises for which respondents had to file a suit for eviction of the trespassers from the said premises being Title Suit No. 125/92. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the premises in question has become totally unsafe due to dilapidated condition and respondent No. 6 filed application u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. Dhanbad which was registered as M.P. Case No. 206/95. The S.D.M. Dhanbad by order dated 8-9-97 directed for eviction of the premises in question by the husband and father of the petitioner. Pursuant to order passed u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, which was not allowed and against that order, respondent No. 6 moved application before the Sessions Court who by order dated 23-7-98 gave a finding and made observation against the order of the S.D.M. Dhanbad. It is stated that ultimately petitioners was removed from the premises with the help of police and the Magistrate breaking upon the lock.;