JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-Special leave granted.

2. This is an extra-ordinary case. A private dispute between a landlord and a tenant was taken up in writ jurisdiction and mandatory orders were passed directing the State and the police authorities to allow the writ petitioner (the landlord) to have ingress and egress to and from the disputed premises. On the basis of this order, the landlord with the help of police authorities evicted the tenant from his flat. In other words, the landlord was able to get back possession of tenanted premises without having to go through the usual landlord and tenant proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

3. It appears that after instituting proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, the landlord moved the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. on 13th August, 1993 passed an order directing the Officer-in-Charge, Muchipara Police Station, to make an enquiry into the complaint dated 26th July, 1993 and submit a report on 19th August, 1993. This was an ex parte order without any notice to the tenant. On 30th August, 1993 the writ petition was finally disposed of on the basis of the police report. It was alleged that Rabin Roy and his brother Gobinda Roy had taken forcible possession of the first floor and other portion of the premises which had not been let out to Rabin Roy. The police authorities were directed to ensure that the free egress and ingress of the landlord to and from the disputed flat was not interfered with by the tenant. If necessary, the police authorities were directed to remove the obstruction to such free egress and ingress. All parties including the Officer-in-Charge, Muchipara Police Station, were directed to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the order. It is not known how the proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code ended. But, as a result of the order passed by the writ court, the police evicted the tenant from the disputed premises and the landlord was able to resume possession immediately with police help.

4. The scope of writ jurisdiction of the Court was lost sight of by the learned Judge and an extraordinary situation was brought about by an improper and unjust order passed without any affidavit in less than three weeks time. Between 13th August, 1993 and 30th August, 1993 a writ petition was moved, taken up for hearing and finally disposed of. A tenant was dislodged from the disputed premises with police help. No proper hearing was given to the respondents. A copy of the police report was not given to the respondents. No direction was given for filing of affidavits even to the State. There is no explanation why the proceedings were not allowed to be continued in the Court of the Executive Magistrate in accordance with law. It was most unfortunate that the Court intervened in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was actually being heard and a drastic order of this nature was passed by the court in such a manner without issuing a Rule Nisi and without any proper hearing. A procedure unknown to law was adopted for disposing of a landlord-tenant dispute.

5. What happened thereafter was also very unfortunate for the appellant. The appeal court on October 14, 1993 passed the following order :-

"The Hon ble A.M. Bhattacharjee, the Chief Justice

and

The Hon ble Justice N.K. Batabyal,

October 14, 1993.

Prasanna Kr. Roy Karmakar

vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

The Court heard learned counsel for the parties. It is purely a private dispute between the private parties. We are fully satisfied particularly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mohan Pandey & Anr. v. Usha Rani Rajgaria & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 1225, that the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal ought not to have been entertained. That being so, we allow that appeal and set aside the order under appeal.

All parties to act on a signed copy o