JUDGMENT :

(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) :

1. By this intra-court appeal, writ petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th of June, 2022 whereby WPA 21093 of 2021 has been disposed of with certain directions. There is a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal, therefore, appellant had filed CAN 1 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay. Having regard to the reasons disclosed in the application and submission of learned counsel for the appellant, CAN 1 of 2022 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant had approached the Writ Court with the plea that the respondent no. 5 is his daughter-in-law and that the appellant and his wife are senior citizens. Further plea was raised that the appellant is the owner of the house at holding no. 141/23, Ward no. 9 under Suri Municipality. It is alleged that the respondent no. 5 is forcibly occupying the 1st floor of the house, therefore, the appellant is residing in an alternative accommodation and inspite of representations to the authorities, no action was taken.

3. In the writ petition, the appellant had made a prayer to restore the accommodation to the appellant of whole 1st floor being holding no. 141, Ward no. 9 under Suri Municipality by removing respondent no. 5.

4. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the stand of the respondent no. 5 that no disrespect or disturbance will be caused to the petitioner and his wife and further that the police authorities had also found that the rooms which were used by the appellant and his wife were kept secured under lock and key and in this background, learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition with liberty to the appellant to enter into the household at any point of time and use the other rooms which are available on the 1st floor and for that purpose, observation of necessary police assistance has been made.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge in the facts of the case ought to have granted the prayer for restoration of possession of the appellant in the entire 1st floor by evicting the respondent no. 5.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant is seeking a relief for eviction of the respondent no. 5 which is a pure private dispute and a family matter and such a direction cannot be issued in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge has already extended adequate protection to the appellant. The issue of title and entitlement of the appellant to have possession of the entire 1st floor of the premises is a factual dispute for which the appellant is required to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. This Court in the order dated 12th of July, 2022 in the matter of Swati Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Others passed in MAT 683 of 2022 has considered the similar issue and has held that:

“8. Now, the question arises, if in exercise of writ jurisdiction, learned Single Judge could have entered into the private dispute between the father-in-law and daughter-in-law and could have directed the eviction of daughter-in-law from the premises in question. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N. Sankaranarayanan vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 457, in a case where a private property dispute between the family members was raised in the writ petition, had held that by indirect means in such a manner by filing a writ petition, a dispute inter se private parties could not be allowed to be raised in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and a writ petition for seeking issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in relation to the private property dispute is not maintainable.

9. In the matter of Jacky vs. Tiny alias Antony and Others repor