Aftab Alam, J.

1. The facts of this case are both distressing and disturbing, distressing because it shows that at least for some persons the judicial process is no longer the natural choice for the enforcement of legal right or for the redressal of grievance and disturbing because in order to bye-pass and cut short the delay in the judicial process resort is not only made to illegal means but attempts are also made to find abettors and allies in the Police force.

2. The two petitioners in this case, who are wife and husband, allege that they were unlawfully and forcibly elected from the tenanted premises by the landlords with the aid and assistance of some police officials. The landlords (respondents 6 and 7) on the other hand state that the petitioners, having occupied the premises without payment of any rent for several years, finally abandoned it with a view to escape payment of the rental dues and the police on being apprised of the situation let them (the landlords) resume possession of the premises.

3. The disputed premises is a shop on the ground floor of a building bearing Municipal holding No. 649-B/395-B, circle No. 6, ward No. 11 and situated at Exhibition Road under Gandhi Maidan P.S. in the town of Patna. The aforesaid holding is a part of a Waqf Alal-aulad of which respondent No. 6, Bibi Roshan Ara is the mutwallia. It is, however, her son respondent No. 7 who on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed in his favour looks after the management of the was property on behalf of his mother. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were inducted into the shop, the subject-matter of dispute in this case, on the basis of a lease deed executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 7 acting as the attorney and on behalf of respondent No. 6. The lease was for a period of seven years beginning from March 1, 1988 and coming to end on February 28, 1995. According to the terms of the lease, the lessee was to occupy the leased out. premises on payment of monthly rental a Rs. 400- for the period of lease at the end of which he was required to deliver the has and vacant possession of the leased premises, in good condition, to the lessor. After the expiry of that lease, it was open to the parties to re-enter into a fresh agreement on mutually agreed terms and conditions and on the basis of fresh and separate documentation.

4. This is about all in this case on which the disputing parties are in agreement and regarding the rest of the case the respective stands taken by the two sides are highly divergent which can be stated as follows:

5. It is the case of the petitioners that after the expiry of the lease on 28.2.1995 though no fresh deed of lease was executed, they made advance payment of the monthly rent up to December, 1997 for the tenanted premises to the landlords. Counsel for the petitioners claimed that by payment of advance rent, after the expiry of the lease the petitioners became month to month tenant. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the tenanted premises they carried on different kinds of business from time to time ; during the years 1988-91, they had the business of sale and purchase of old scooters ; in 1991 they took up the business of travel agency under the name and style of Multi purpose Travel Agency and at the time of their ejectment in April 1997, they were trying to open a public telephone booth in the tenanted shop and to that and were persuing their application in the department of telecommunications.

6. Further, according to the petitioners on 28.4.1997, they went to their village home. Till that date the shop was fully under their possession and the petitioners sent away after locking up the shop as usual. On returning from the village on 9.5.1997, petitioner No. 2 went to the shop and found to his surprise that the lock put by him on the collapsable shutters was removed and was replaced by three new locks; a Collapsable shutter on the northern side of the shop