Sujit Narayan Prasad - (1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad by virtue of decision taken therein on 09.04.2019 as contained in Memo No.424 by which his shop has been sealed in connection with the execution of decree passed in Title Suit No.273 of 2011 for execution of the decree passed in execution Case No.185 of 2015 has been filed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case and as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No.6 and has opened a shop for carrying out his business of S.T.D. Booth, since 2000 and now a clinic is also being run in the said shop. The said respondent No.6 has purchased the 6 Katha of land in question by registered sale deed No.6135 and 6125 from one Subhash Kumar Gupta on 28.09.1994 and 27.09.1994 respectively and the respondent No.7 also claims of purchasing of 2 Katha of the land in the said land by sale deed No.9096 dated 27.06.2011 and as a result of said dispute the respondent No.7 has filed title suit being Title Suit No.273 of 2011 praying inter alia for a decree of recovery for possession of the land area 2 Katha, and structures also. The said title suit was also contested by the respondent No.6 and 7 and ultimately the same was decreed in favour of the respondent No.7 on 08.07.2015 against which a Title Appeal No.82 of 2015 was filed by the respondent No.5 and 6 which was also dismissed on 09.02.2016 against which second appeal was filed being Second Appeal No.160 of 2016 which is pending before this Court. The said second appeal an interim order of status quo was granted by this Court on 08.05.2017 but later on it was not continued but a date was fixed on 25.04.2019 for hearing of the case.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.7 has made an agreement of tenancy on 17.12.2016 with the petitioner to the effect that the rent will be paid to the respondent No.7 for the rent of the shop in question and as such the petitioner has become the tenant of respondent No.7 and enjoying the premises but all of a sudden the petitioner has been directed to be evicted for getting the possession of the suit property, subject matter of the Title Suit No.273 of 2011 for which, an execution case being Execution Case No.185 of 2015 has been filed. The respondent No.6 has sealed the shop and as such the authorities have exceeded his jurisdiction sealing the shop without considering after the decree the petitioner has come with an agreement with the respondent No.7 on 17.12.2016 and as such the possession of the tenanted premises in view of the aforesaid agreement should not have been made by the authority. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar Vrs. Yesodai Ammal, 1979 4 SCC 214 and Indian bank Vrs. Nippon Enterprises South and Ors., 2016 15 SCC 79.;